<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Abraham Escalante <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aeklant@gmail.com" target="_blank">aeklant@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Hi Ralf, thanks for all the feedback.</div><div><br></div><div>I have made some changes. You can find the second draft here: <a href="http://1drv.ms/1BFW6Pb" target="_blank">http://1drv.ms/1BFW6Pb</a></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>I reckon that when it comes to the StatisticsCleanup issues, the schedule may change considering their varying scopes. However, I need to get the ball rolling with the community feedback since most of the issues don't have any. I also need to do my own work getting to know the functions more closely, which is the next step in my plan. Do you have any other suggestions?</div><div><br></div><div>I provide an overview of the changes to the draft here for your convenience:</div><span><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>About the abstract and deliverables: I would state the overall goal as "enhancement and addressing maintenance issues"<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>It did sound like more of a documentation project than a coding effort. I made a few changes and I hope it sounds more accurate now.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would explicitly add adding and checking unit tests. </div><div>I think some functions with insufficient test coverage should be verified if possible against R or similar.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span><div> </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>- the change to _chk_asarray gets too much attention I think, it's not that big a deal (and effort will also be minor on the overall scale of things).<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I have removed some of the focus to it. It is also listed in the "community bonding" period because its purpose is to help me with the learning curve.</div><span><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>- you reserve separate time for PEP8 compliance, this should actually be done at the moment you write any code. The TravisCI tests for Scipy will check PEP8 automatically, so you can't even do it separately.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I've kept it as a deliverable because it is obviously required, but I removed it from the housekeeping buffer weeks.</div><span><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>- API changes for trimmed statistics functions will take longer than other issues in StatisticsReview. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> </div></span><div>I moved the task to week 5. I also added a task at the "community bonding period" (although in reality this should start earlier and go along my learning curve) to make sure all the issues are defined in scope before the coding begins.</div><span><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>- ppcc_plot is already done in PR 4563, so doesn't need to be in your plan<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Removed it and made a note at the deliverables section.</div><span><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>- making stats.mstats consistent with stats is also a larger job. I would put it towards the end of your plan.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I moved this to the very end while keeping the last week as a buffer just in case this or any other tasks need some more work. </div><span><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>The other thing I recommend is to look at each function in your proposal, and assess whether it just needs a few tweaks or a lot of work.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Agreed. This is basically what the scope definition task is meant to do and although it is listed to start at "community bonding" I plan to start right away.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Review and work for several functions that are on the list will not take much time.</div><div><br></div><div>"Implement `alternative keyword` addition to all hypothesis tests" </div><div>This might be time consuming or difficult for the hypothesis tests that are not based on normal or t distributions, e.g. KS tests<br></div><div>or essentially impossible without writing new algorithms: e.g. fisher_exact, IIRC.</div><div>for normal and t-based tests it is trivial, once the pattern is established, plus decision on breaking backwards compatibility (?!)</div><div><br></div><div>Another general issue that I would like to see, if there is time, is to add a `missing` keyword to the functions, that could in the first stage just delegate to the masked array functions.</div><div><br></div><div>Josef</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Abraham.</div></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
SciPy-Dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:SciPy-Dev@scipy.org" target="_blank">SciPy-Dev@scipy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev" target="_blank">http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>