The blog post that keeps on giving :D
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 11:46:01 AM UTC-4, Elliot Saba wrote:
>
> Ah, I was confusing it with midrange. Thanks everybody! Learn something
> new every day. :)
> -E
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, John Myles White <johnmyl...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> FWIW, the mean of the min and max is called the midrange.
>>
>> — John
>>
>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 8:17 AM, Spencer Russell <s...@mit.edu <javascript:>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Elliot,
>>
>> The median isn't the mean of the min and max (though that was fun to say).
>>
>> Wikipedia says it well:
>>
>> "the median is the numerical value separating the higher half of a data
>> sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half.
>> The median of a finite list of numbers can be found by arranging all the
>> observations from lowest value to highest value and picking the middle one
>> (e.g., the median of {3, 3, 5, 9, 11} is 5). If there is an even number of
>> observations, then there is no single middle value; the median is then
>> usually defined to be the mean of the two middle values"
>>
>> peace,
>> s
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Ivar Nesje <iva...@gmail.com
>> <javascript:>> wrote:
>>
>>> According to Julia median is defined as
>>>
>>> n = length(v)
>>> if isodd(n)
>>> return middle(select!(v,div(n+1,2)))
>>> else
>>> m = select!(v, div(n,2):div(n,2)+1)
>>> return middle(m[1], m[2])
>>> end
>>>
>>> Ivar
>>>
>>> kl. 16:03:47 UTC+2 tirsdag 22. juli 2014 skrev Elliot Saba følgende:
>>>>
>>>> Reading your post, I'm a little confused Iain. You state:
>>>>
>>>> If we consider only packages with at least 1 package depending on them,
>>>> we find the median to be 3 dependent packages but the mean to be 10.5.
>>>> This
>>>> is due to the 15 or so packages with more than 30 dependent packages.
>>>>
>>>> Now, I'm not the best at statistics, but isn't the median of *x*
>>>> defined as *(min(x) + max(x))/2*? If that is the case, (and assuming
>>>> that we don't have negative package dependency counts) I don't see how the
>>>> median can be 3, but the mean be 10.5. Perhaps you meant the mode was 3?
>>>> -E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Iain Dunning <iaind...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hah, yeah, strangely relevant.
>>>>> PkgEval runs nightly (around 1am US Eastern), but obviously with so
>>>>> many people using Julia there is a lot of room for chaos inbetween runs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 7:58:46 AM UTC-4, Tomas Lycken wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look what my RSS reader just picked up! =)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://iaindunning.com/2014/pkg-deps.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // T
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 12:37:59 PM UTC+2, Tomas Lycken wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still think the best way to resolve things if you should encounter
>>>>>>> problems, is to notify the maintainers. Most people in this community
>>>>>>> respond surprisingly fast =)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is some automated testing going on already, mainly thanks to
>>>>>>> [Iain Dunning](https://github.com/IainNZ)'s amazing work with
>>>>>>> PackageEvaluator and related tools. For example, if you click "more
>>>>>>> options" on pkg.julialang.org and then "Show package ecosystem
>>>>>>> statistics for Julia nightly...", you'll see some great data showing
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> current (and past) state of the entire ecosystem. You'll notice a few
>>>>>>> dips
>>>>>>> in the green curve, when changes somewhere suddenly broke a lot of
>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>> everywhere - and you'll also see that most of it was resolved in a
>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>> of a few days. This happened because semi-automated issues were filed
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> the system against the packages when they broke, and maintainers were
>>>>>>> quick
>>>>>>> to fix whatever they needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the case of your problems - someone tagging a version without
>>>>>>> specifying a correct dependency - that will also be picked up by
>>>>>>> PkgEval,
>>>>>>> and the maintainer will be notified. However, since PkgEval only runs
>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>> now and then, and since quite a lot of users today "live on the edge"
>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>> actively report issues when they find them) it's not uncommon that
>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>> like this are picked up by users before PkgEval notices them. It's very
>>>>>>> likely that, as the ecosystem matures and stabilizes, this problem
>>>>>>> won't be
>>>>>>> a problem anymore...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // T
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 11:47:32 AM UTC+2, Andreas Lobinger wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello colleagues,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 21, 2014 4:53:17 PM UTC+2, Tomas Lycken wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think this problem must be resolved by better practices among
>>>>>>>>> package maintainers: in short, the goal must be that as long as you
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>> use (the latest) tagged versions of any packages, everything should
>>>>>>>>> Just
>>>>>>>>> Work (TM). That means, in short, that if a package maintainer adds
>>>>>>>>> functionality that depends on some specific addition to a different
>>>>>>>>> package, it is up to that package maintainer to make sure *not* to
>>>>>>>>> tag a new version until the dependency package has tagged one, in
>>>>>>>>> which the
>>>>>>>>> new behavior is included, so the dependency can be correctly
>>>>>>>>> specified.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... in an ideal world. All that we use around julia has a version
>>>>>>>> number less than 1.0 so hiccups are expected (at least by me). The
>>>>>>>> question
>>>>>>>> was rather how i can help myself and if there is some undocumented
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> assumption. If i ever publish a package i'll try hard to follow your
>>>>>>>> advice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This interdependency things showed up also in the great
>>>>>>>> julia-graphics thread on julia-dev. Maybe some automatic testing could
>>>>>>>> help? Maybe some dependency graph could be extracted out of the
>>>>>>>> METADATA?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wishing a happy day,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
