Replies: 1 comment
-
| Hi - I think I ignored your PR when I saw it because the first line said it was a draft. If it's ready for review, you should make that clear in the description! Sorry for only skimming it, but we have a lot of traffic lately (especially with the uptick in garbage AI PRs) and I don't always have time to read the description deeply – so when I see "draft" in the first sentence I move along. I'll take a look now. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hi, similar to #33164, I'm finding the review process a bit unclear. I have a PR #33970 which implements a feature requested in the (admittedly stale) issue #3928. I'm not quite sure the code is mergeable at this point but would appreciate if someone could take a look and/or give their feedback.
The code is a pretty straightforward re-implementation of scipy's version (and the original source paper they based spline calculations on). I can also attest that no AI was used to draft the PR.
I appreciate the work done on jax, and realize it's a huge burden to review out-of-the-blue PRs like this. In the future I'll start a discussion before opening the PR; that said, the functionality is critical for parity with scipy and the implementation problems in #3928 have been resolved by scipy's improved boundary condition handling.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions