On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:27:08AM +0100, Lars Buitinck wrote:
> No objection to it being merged, but would you consider doing a rebase
> -i? LP's history contains lots of micro-commits, which I think can be
> largely squashed together.
Sorry to disappoint everybody, but they were so many conflict
On 02/02/2012 12:34 PM, Olivier Grisel wrote:
> 2012/2/2 Mathieu Blondel:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Olivier Grisel
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I wonder which representation is the nicest for the end user? It might
>>> be the case that keeping the unlabeled data as a separate variable
2012/2/2 Mathieu Blondel :
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Olivier Grisel
> wrote:
>
>> I wonder which representation is the nicest for the end user? It might
>> be the case that keeping the unlabeled data as a separate variable
>> might be more natural but that will probably impact pipeline-ab
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Olivier Grisel wrote:
> I wonder which representation is the nicest for the end user? It might
> be the case that keeping the unlabeled data as a separate variable
> might be more natural but that will probably impact pipeline-ability
> and cross-validation since X
2012/2/2 Mathieu Blondel :
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Gael Varoquaux
> wrote:
>> Just a heads up: I am going to merge in label propagation
>> https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/547 in the next hour
>> unless somebody has concerns with the code.
>
> I personally don't like usi
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 08:04:03PM +0900, Mathieu Blondel wrote:
> I personally don't like using -1 to encode unlabeled data. I would
> prefer np.nan (which require y to be np.float) or -2 (if you prefer y
> to be np.int).
I am against nan, but I might agree with you that -1 is not ideal.
I sugge
2012/2/2 Gael Varoquaux :
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:27:08AM +0100, Lars Buitinck wrote:
>> No objection to it being merged, but would you consider doing a rebase
>> -i? LP's history contains lots of micro-commits, which I think can be
>> largely squashed together.
>
> This is a bit further than
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:27:08AM +0100, Lars Buitinck wrote:
> No objection to it being merged, but would you consider doing a rebase
> -i? LP's history contains lots of micro-commits, which I think can be
> largely squashed together.
This is a bit further than I am usually willing to go in term
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Gael Varoquaux
wrote:
> Just a heads up: I am going to merge in label propagation
> https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/547 in the next hour
> unless somebody has concerns with the code.
I personally don't like using -1 to encode unlabeled data. I wou
2012/2/2 Gael Varoquaux :
> Just a heads up: I am going to merge in label propagation
> https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/547 in the next hour
> unless somebody has concerns with the code.
>
> I think that it is a beautiful pull request and I am very happy to see it
> landing in the
Just a heads up: I am going to merge in label propagation
https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/547 in the next hour
unless somebody has concerns with the code.
I think that it is a beautiful pull request and I am very happy to see it
landing in the scikit.
G
11 matches
Mail list logo
