On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:27:23AM +0100, Conrad Lee wrote: > Even better, he suggests (and I agree), would be to make this change > upstream, and replace scipy.cluster's hierarchy code with Müllner's faster > code.
I agree. > Then scikit-learn could benefit simply by building on > scipy.cluster.hierarchy. It already does: we benched the two implementation and have a decision rule that chooses the most efficient one. > This would mean that scikit-learn relies on > possibly hard-to-maintain C++ code. IMHO the hierarchical clustering code of scipy is already hard to maintain. > I have no experience working with the scipy team, so I have a > question: where is the appropriate place to run this suggestion by them? > Should I just post my suggestion on the Scipy-Dev mailing list? Yes, scipy-dev is the right place to hold such discussion. Also a pull request to scipy should be prepared. Ideally, even if you don't submit a pull request, it would be interesting to point to the code, so that the discussion can be led on technical basis. Cheers, Gaël ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct _______________________________________________ Scikit-learn-general mailing list Scikit-learn-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scikit-learn-general
