-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26.5k
DOC: Inclusion criteria for speed ups #13255
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Document better the inclusion criteria for new algorithm to speed up an existing problem.
doc/faq.rst
Outdated
| - It does not introduce new hyper-parameters (as it makes the library | ||
| more future-proof) | ||
| - It is easy to document clearly when the contribution improves the speed | ||
| and when it does not. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this second point might benefit from an example "(e.g. when n_features >> n_samples)"
might want periods at the end of every list item for consistency
doc/faq.rst
Outdated
| more future-proof), | ||
| - it is easy to document clearly when the contribution improves the speed | ||
| and when it does not, for instance "when n_features >> | ||
| n_samples)", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thanks! seems like there's a spurious parenthesis, otherwise lgtm
|
Let's merge |
)" This reverts commit cf79cc1.
)" This reverts commit cf79cc1.
Document better the inclusion criteria for new algorithm to speed up an existing problem.
Summarizes discussion at the sprint with @jnothman @adrinjalali @ogrisel and others.