Closed amandasaurus closed 5 years ago
I think we have to be careful with any automatic behavior change we introduce here. I can see this confusing users when they e.g. predict with one model and then predict again with a different model - but the output files don't change.
Instead it's probably a better idea to let the user handle the slippy map directory e.g. with the rs subset
command if you want to quickly test on a smaller slippy map directory for example.
I think we have to be careful with any automatic behavior change we introduce here. I can see this confusing users when they e.g. predict with one model and then predict again with a different model - but the output files don't change.
Instead it's probably a better idea to let the user handle the slippy map directory e.g. with the rs subset
command if you want to quickly test on a smaller slippy map directory for example.
I think we have to be careful with any automatic behavior change we introduce here. I can see this confusing users when they e.g. predict with one model and then predict again with a different model - but the output files don't change.
Instead it's probably a better idea to let the user handle the slippy map directory e.g. with the rs subset
command if you want to quickly test on a smaller slippy map directory for example.
I think we have to be careful with any automatic behavior change we introduce here. I can see this confusing users when they e.g. predict with one model and then predict again with a different model - but the output files don't change.
Instead it's probably a better idea to let the user handle the slippy map directory e.g. with the rs subset
command if you want to quickly test on a smaller slippy map directory for example.
I think we have to be careful with any automatic behavior change we introduce here. I can see this confusing users when they e.g. predict with one model and then predict again with a different model - but the output files don't change.
Instead it's probably a better idea to let the user handle the slippy map directory e.g. with the rs subset
command if you want to quickly test on a smaller slippy map directory for example.
Would keeping the existing behaviour and adding a "--skip-existing" flag be better? Then the current behaviour doesn't change, but users have an option.
On 22/10/2018 10:14, Daniel J. H. wrote:
I think we have to be careful with any automatic behavior change we introduce here. I can see this confusing users when they e.g. predict with one model and then predict again with a different model - but the output files don't change.
Instead it's probably a better idea to let the user handle the slippy map directory e.g. with the |rs subset| command if you want to quickly test on a smaller slippy map directory for example.
— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/mapbox/robosat/pull/132#issuecomment-431765012, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGC0cvALKB_iQ2E-ql9PdlNj2Aat-4ks5unX5tgaJpZM4XyYm3.
Yes that sounds like a good idea. We already have a --resume
flag in train
want to add a flag to predict then we are consistent.
You will also need to run flake8 and black - check the travis config for how to do this.
I think this is stale by now.
This change makes
rs predict
not do any predictions if the resultant output file already exists. Sometimes when playing around, I'll runrs predict
, then stop it. If I run it again, it'll redo predictions it's already done. With this change, you're not redoing work.