[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [help-GIFT] Optimizing

From: Wolfgang Mueller
Subject: Re: [help-GIFT] Optimizing
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:10:55 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11

Dear Julia, Dear David, diear all,

I am not able to seriously review patches in the next few days (I did
say so, right ;-) ). However, though I am not a pure fan of the kind of deal
proposed below, I suggest the following.

1) we accept your patches, with the possibility of later changing the
most hairraising hardcodings
2) someone do some hacks to my perl (possibly with my help) to make
multiple feature extactors peacefully coexist.
3) if it turns out that your patches are really bad for some purposes
and cannot be cured without losing the speed advantages, we add a more
conservative version back to the tree.

Sounds good to both/all of you?


On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, address@hidden wrote:

> I couldn't agree more.
> Coding is my way of stress-releif, from my normal day-to-day activities.
> My next sets of optimizations are more algorithmic changes inside of 
> gabor_filter, and therefore will benifit both the multi-extractor, and the 
> single-extractor. I hoped to get these committed soon, but i'm not yet sure 
> if i should even apply my 70* and 80* patches, due to the aparent controversy 
> of my earlier patches. 
> can i get the live list members to look over my patches, and see what you 
> think? 
> I'm perfectly willing to start work on the multi-extractor, as soon as my 
> present work is in. this represents MONTHS of my effort, and i'd really hate 
> to see it discarded due to 'accademic cleanliness' concerns. coding 
> cleanliness? i'll agree with that all day long. ;)
> I've got a big weekend of gift hacking ahead of me. please pick a direction, 
> and i'll follow it. ;)
> Julia Longtin <address@hidden>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 09:32:34AM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> > Well, the feature extraction as is has suffered from the fact that it is a 
> > quick perl hack from the late nineties made to simplify the usage of a 
> > command line tool for single images. My tries to improve this in a more 
> > fundamental manner got stuck when I changed my job and realised that coding 
> > now takes too much of my time. I did not like the alternatives.
> > 
> > My view now is that the project could greatly profit if we got something 
> > going that is good enough. Yes, I do think making GIFT work for any-sized 
> > images is something useful, and it should not be stopped. I do not think my 
> > proposition is in any way in conflict with that.
> > 
> > Doing feature extraction with multiple files via command line parameters 
> > appears useful, however you won't get your 90k images in the command line. 
> > Hmm. There is xargs.
> > 
> > Anyway my feeling is that the pipe thingy will be more flexible and useful. 
> > It is a gut feeling.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Wolfgang   
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> >                    
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > help-GIFT mailing list
> > address@hidden
> >
> _______________________________________________
> help-GIFT mailing list
> address@hidden
Dr. Wolfgang Mueller
LS Medieninformatik
Universitaet Bamberg

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]