[SciPy-User] Least-squares fittings with bounds: why is scipy not up to the task?
Mon Mar 12 16:41:47 CDT 2012
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Matthew Newville
> On Saturday, March 10, 2012 11:00:44 AM UTC-6, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>> 09.03.2012 22:13, Matthew Newville kirjoitti:
>> > Well, I understand you don't necessarily consider yourself to be a scipy
>> > dev, but I'll ask anyway: How many pull requests have been made, and
>> > how many have been accepted? Perhaps I am not reading github's Pull
>> > Request link correctly, but that seems to indicate that the numbers are
>> > 17 and 0. Surely, those cannot be correct. Unless I am counting
>> > wrong, 5 of the 17 (total? outstanding?) pull requests listed for
>> > scipy/scipy involve optimization.
>> Wrong: 17 open, 99 accepted.
> Yes, I see that (or more) now.... I've been using git for a while now,
> but still learning how to read github pages. I knew 17/0 couldn't be
> right.... Sorry for that.
>> > Well, there was a discussion "Alternative to scipy.optimize" in the past
>> > two weeks on scipy-users that mentioned lmfit, and several over the past
>> > several months, and apparently requests about mpfit in the more distant
>> > past. And yet two scipy contributers (according to github's list, I am
>> > counting you) responded to the original request for features **exactly
>> > like lmfit** with something reading an awful lot like "Well, you'll have
>> > to write one". Perhaps insular is not a fair characterization -- how
>> > would you characterize that?
>> Come on. The correct characterization is just: "busy". I did not
>> remember that your project existed as it was announced half a year ago
>> with no proposal that it should be integrated, and did not read the
>> recent thread on scipy-user.
> OK, I can accept that. We're all busy.
> I still take exception with Gael's response to the original question. In
> this instance, there was browbeating of outside people for not contributing
> coupled with ignoring contributions from outside people. You'll probably
> forgive me for thinking that is not so encouraging for outside
> Scipy is fantastic project, and I've been relying on it for many years.
> But it is also very large and diverse, with lots of great code, and some
> mediocre code, and it's sometimes difficult to tell what is well supported
> and what is less so. It's also not clear to me what the strategy is for
> deciding what belongs in the core and what belongs in outside projects.
This strategy was never really clear, we're trying to improve that. The
recent "SciPy Goal" thread helped a lot there. Better descriptions of what
has been discussed and how to make these decisions (in general, there's
always a grey area) should be put up for review and discussion soon.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SciPy-User