[SciPy-dev] stats.models report/preannouncement

Skipper Seabold jsseabold@gmail....
Wed Aug 19 20:10:05 CDT 2009


On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Robert Kern<robert.kern@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 18:05, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/8/19 Stéfan van der Walt <stefan@sun.ac.za>:
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> 2009/8/19 josef.pktd@gmail.com <josef.pktd@gmail.com>:
>>>> Most importantly, almost every result has been verified with at least
>>>> one other statistical package, R, Stata and SAS. The guiding principal
>>>> for the rewrite was that all numbers have to be verified, even if we
>>>> don't manage to cover everything. There are a few remaining issues,
>>>> that we hope to clear up by next week. Not all parts of the code have
>>>> been tested for unexpected inputs. We are currently adding checks for,
>>>> and conversions of array types and dimension. Additionally, many of
>>>> the tests call rpy to compare the results directly with R. We use an
>>>> extended wrapper for R models in the test suite. This provides greater
>>>> flexibility writing new test cases, but will eventually be replaced by
>>>> hard coded expected results.
>>>>
>>>> The code is written for plain NumPy arrays.
>>>
>>> Thanks for all your hard work!
>>>
>>>> We can either package it as a scikit or as a independent
>>>> package distributed through pypi.
>>>
>>> SciKits are also distributed through pypi.  It's basically just a
>>> naming/namespace convention.  All scikits.* packages from pypi are
>>> also listed automatically on
>>>
>>> http://scikits.appspot.com
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Is it worth setting up a scikits if the code goes into scipy in a few months?
>> I never looked at how high the setup costs for a scikits are. A plain
>> python package looks easier. However, I have no experience in
>> distributing a package.
>
> It's always a chunk of work. It's no worse with scikits.
>

Is it any better? ;)

-Skipper


More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list