Skip to content

Order and coordination for the five parked model extensions #12

Description

@jhollway

Tracking issue for the five extensions parked on branches while the architecture settles: #7, #8, #9, #10, #11.

Why they were parked

Two of the roadmap's phases were fighting each other. Merging QAPglm() and QAPcss() into one skeleton means reconciling every branch point twice, and widening the test suite over duplicated code doubles that cost rather than removing it. Four of those branch points served model types that no test can reach, no runner can exercise, or no user can select.

Nothing is deleted. Each extension is on its own branch at bc96783, and each strip on develop is one commit that git revert reinstates.

What it bought

Suggests fell from eight modelling packages to three:

Before After
lme4, nnet, fixest, gmm, MASS, pscl, torch, glmmTMB lme4, MASS, pscl

MASS ships with R, so the marginal install cost is lme4 and pscl. The core — gaussian, binomial and poisson through stats::lm() and stats::glm(), HC3 errors, both permutation schemes, and all the network shapes — needs nothing from Suggests at all.

Proposed order back

# Extension When Blocked on
1 #8 fixest fixed effects after the formula grammar is settled a decision, not code
2 #7 multinomial + comparison after the two engines are merged rewrite, not revert
3 #11 torch GPU after the design-matrix performance work whether it is still needed
4 #10 GMM whenever its singular covariance is understood
5 #9 glmmTMB mixed whenever whether 62 dependencies are worth two combinations

#8 comes first because it is a naming decision with no engineering behind it, and because a bar in the formula currently means one thing only, which is a state worth either keeping deliberately or leaving deliberately.

#7 should be rewritten against the merged engine rather than reverted onto it. Its 21 forks are exactly what the merge is trying to remove.

Open question

Two of these are candidates for dropping rather than reinstating. Does anyone fit a multinomial MRQAP (#7)? Is the GPU path worth its weight once the permutation loop stops rebuilding the design matrix (#11)?

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Labels

questionFurther information is requested

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions