making gpflux builder consistent with gpflow builders #478
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
hstojic
commented
Jan 26, 2022
uri-granta
approved these changes
Feb 2, 2022
vpicheny
reviewed
Feb 2, 2022
vpicheny
reviewed
Feb 2, 2022
vpicheny
reviewed
Feb 2, 2022
uri-granta
reviewed
Feb 14, 2022
sebastianober
approved these changes
Feb 15, 2022
|
Happy with GPflux things, LGTM :) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
gpflux builder was not really consistent with new gpflow build functions (setting some defaults, moved to builders.py etc), this PR corrects that
along the way I made some other smaller changes
@sebastianober your input with the default values would be very welcome :)