Skip to content
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

WIP: Change the signature of pick_random #155

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rogiervandergeer
Copy link
Collaborator

Parent pickers are no longer passed any kwargs. The pick_random must
now be initialised before use, the number of parents passed to it
upon initialization. In addition, pickers must always return a sequence
of picked parents - even if it is only one.

These changes make it much easier to implement more complex picking
algorithms, and in addition they remove the requirement for the
select_arguments() decorator, which hurts my eyes.

Parent pickers are no longer passed any kwargs. The pick_random must
now be initialised before use, the number of parents passed to it
upon initialization. In addition, pickers must always return a sequence
of picked parents - even if it is only one.

These changes make it much easier to implement more complex picking
algorithms, and in addition they remove the requirement for the
select_arguments() decorator, which hurts my eyes.
@koaning
Copy link
Contributor

koaning commented May 15, 2020

This does feel like a breaking change. Might a deprecation warning be a nice thing to add here?

@rogiervandergeer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This does feel like a breaking change. Might a deprecation warning be a nice thing to add here?

It is certainly is a breaking change. Hence it would probably be best to only publish this in v2.0. Adding a deprecation warning here doesn't make much sense: you'd be saying "this isn't going to work in the future, but you cannot do anything about it right now".

@koaning
Copy link
Contributor

koaning commented May 18, 2020

I can live with that. But since we're not at version 1 yet, is there a reason you immediately want to jump to 2?

@rogiervandergeer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rogiervandergeer commented May 18, 2020 via email

@koaning
Copy link
Contributor

koaning commented May 18, 2020

@rogiervandergeer are there other changes we'd like to make for version 1? I mean ... version 1 is a milestone release.

@koaning
Copy link
Contributor

koaning commented May 18, 2020

One thing that I've been wondering about is that we may then also submit evol to this: https://joss.theoj.org/

@rogiervandergeer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rogiervandergeer commented May 18, 2020 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants