Re: [eigen] New Levenberg Marquardt stuff

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]


I just wanted to say that I generally agree.

Most of all, I would say that there should be no commit breaking the API without previous discussion, or if its trivial enough, at least an annunciation. Furthermore, I would appreciate if things don't get moved from unsupported to supported without giving the possibility to discuss it. This would be the last "clean" moment to bring forward concerns about the module's API or other issues which might exist. If there are no objections, it should be moved (not copied) 'as is' from the unsupported branch, i.e. either (preferably) do necessary modifications before that or afterwards (of course modifications over time will and shall happen).

Just my 0.02€

On 07.12.2012 16:35, Thomas Capricelli wrote:

I noticed a lot of huge changes on the LM stuff, and i'm worried.

1) i'm the original author and i haven't heard about this before it was
2) i couldn't see any discussion about it on the mailing list neither
3) I disagree with the changes
     * there's code duplication
     * the move LevenbergMarquardt -> LevenbergMarquardtLegacy breaks
heavily existing code
     * MPL headers were added to those files, which is wrong, they are
under another licence (MINPACK). This is especially bad as i'm
mentionned as the author, i dont back those changes
4) I disagree with the way it was done : the new files are commited as a
whole in one commit. This is really not great, because you can not see
the modification done to the original files. You need to do it by hand.
Mercurial was not used to do the copy.
An ideal way would have been to first commit the 'hg cp xx yy' stuff,
then apply your changes (which are a lot), ideally in small chunks.

well..i really have a bad feeling about this.


Dipl.-Inf. Christoph Hertzberg
Cartesium 0.049
Universität Bremen
Enrique-Schmidt-Straße 5
28359 Bremen

Tel: +49 (421) 218-64252

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+