-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 116
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Version 2.0 Breaking Changes #500
Comments
Right now, we are working on GLM with QR decomposition in two steps
Hope this will solve some issues related to the |
I would like to have |
Nice to hear you're working on QR! I think we can wait until you finish that before tagging 2.0. OTC, multiple dependent variables and quasi-likelihood do not change current behavior so they can be added later (and we have to discuss whether they should live in this package or in a separate one). |
I don't think we should do anything about #259. Anyway #487 will change #483, #255 and #240 would be good to have, but not breaking AFAICT. |
I hope 2.0 fixes #496 and throws an error on missing values to protect users from making analytical errors by accident. |
I've split the items to show the status of the issue/PR for each of the changes and also converted the items not already tracked in individual issues to new issues. I've also added them to milestones. Most of them the the 2.0 milestone but some of the issues mentioned in comments as out of scope, I have put on the "out of scope for 2.0" milestone to show that they are deliberately considered out of scope. I hope these steps will make it possible for us to release 2.0 relatively soon. It's overdue. |
Originally posted by @nalimilan in #339 (comment)
Here's a quick list of potentially issues that we might want to try to address as part of a push towards 2.0. Several are relatively straightforward, some could potentially be solved via more extensive documentation, and some will require Decisions to be made (e.g. all the stuff with weights).
wts
keyword argument name toweights
#350wts
option doesn't automatically subset when a DataFrame has missing values #255There are several other issues I would like to see addressed sooner rather than later, but all are technically nonbreaking, at least under ColPrac guidelines, e.g., changes to the show methods, as raised in
ftest
and-0.0
#461The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: