Tue Jun 1 03:32:56 CDT 2010
On Jun 1, 2010, at 3:22 AM, email@example.com wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Travis Oliphant <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On May 31, 2010, at 9:16 AM, email@example.com wrote:
>>> This is more about the process then the content, distributions was
>>> Travis's baby (although unfinished), and most of his changes are very
>>> good, but I don't want to look for the 5-10% (?) typos anymore.
>> I really am not sure what the difference between looking at timeline of changes and a formal "review" process really is? In either case you are "looking for someone's mistakes or problems". I do think your estimate of typos is a bit aggressive. Really? 5-10% typos. What is the denominator?
> I just replied for most of this.
> My test run in the middle of the weekend (before I gave up), had about
> 4 or 5 test failures in the new _logpdf _logcdf methods.
In this particular case, you can just look at the pdf method and compare it with the logpdf method. I only added ones that were obvious. Are you running a test different from
>>> from scipy.stats import test
to get these errors?
Are you saying the skew and kurtosis test functions return different numbers than expected?
More information about the SciPy-Dev