search

caporaso-lab / sourcetracker2

SourceTracker2
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
61 stars 45 forks source link

do we really need gibbs to be a subcommand? #65

Closed gregcaporaso closed 7 years ago

gregcaporaso commented 7 years ago

Since it's the only one, would it be more intuitive if we just called sourcetracker2 rather than sourcetracker2 gibbs? Or are we planning to add others? If we do keep it, for users, the command gibbs probably isn't the most useful. Maybe track (or something along those lines) would be more intuitive (i.e., you don't need to know implementation details of the methods to understand the command name)?

wdwvt1 commented 7 years ago

I think yes because we also want to have other methods available - specifically rf, svm, ols, lda. I think we could have a second command for all of these together, and few if any parameters exposed. The idea of giving the user access to these faster running/simpler alternatives has been voiced by most people I have talked to so far.

gregcaporaso commented 7 years ago

Ok, makes sense.