We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
During the review of #91, we found that we had no explicit file name policy. In my understanding, we followed the following convention implicitly.
{library_name}_simple.py
keras_simple.py
{library_name}_integration.py
keras_integration.py
But some examples integrates the pruning example to simple example and switch the behavior with the --pruning option (See #77).
--pruning
So, we may need to discuss the naming policy based on the current status.
#77 will reveal the use of integration modules and existence of --pruning option in each example. So, this issue can be revisit after it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This issue has not seen any recent activity.
Sorry, something went wrong.
No branches or pull requests
Motivation
During the review of #91, we found that we had no explicit file name policy.
In my understanding, we followed the following convention implicitly.
{library_name}_simple.py
that demonstrates the Optuna usage without the integration module (e.g.,keras_simple.py
).{library_name}_integration.py
that demonstrates the Optuna usage with the integration module (e.g.,keras_integration.py
).But some examples integrates the pruning example to simple example and switch the behavior with the
--pruning
option (See #77).So, we may need to discuss the naming policy based on the current status.
Description
#77 will reveal the use of integration modules and existence of
--pruning
option in each example. So, this issue can be revisit after it.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: