>> If sklearn will be maintaining a patch set against libsvm, this patch set
>> should be available to non sklearn users too.
>
> I reckon you are volonteering to maintain a fork of libsvm? That's very
> good news, the community definitely needs this badly.
I was considering the idea of a fork, but I think it might be premature.
Everyone seems to agree that it would be great if the patches merged upstream.
If the maintainers have been unwilling to merge patches, then they
might not merge the patches this time around.
If you fork the project, that might be taken as an aggressive move and
they will be unwilling to work together with the maintainers of the
fork.
My thought was that releasing a patch set, but not actively
maintaining it, and following it up with an email to maintainers:
"We'd like to see our patch set merged into libsvm core code", then
there is some pressure on libsvm to merge the patches but not an
aggressive amount (like forking).
Just my thoughts.
Joseph
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How fast is your code?
3 out of 4 devs don\\\'t know how their code performs in production.
Find out how slow your code is with AppDynamics Lite.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;262219672;13503038;z?
http://info.appdynamics.com/FreeJavaPerformanceDownload.html
_______________________________________________
Scikit-learn-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scikit-learn-general
