-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.6k
Clarify maximize option in optimizer.py #112724
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/112724
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ⏳ No Failures, 3 PendingAs of commit 642f2e5 with merge base 68dead4 ( This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
@pytorchbot merge |
Merge startedYour change will be merged once all checks pass (ETA 0-4 Hours). Learn more about merging in the wiki. Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team |
Thanks @albanD for the quick review and merge! |
While reading the documentation of the optimizers I noticed the description of the `maximize` option is misleading. It currently reads as if the parameters would we maximized, which is factually incorrect. This PR proposes a more clear description. Pull Request resolved: pytorch#112724 Approved by: https://github.com/albanD
While reading the documentation of the optimizers I noticed the description of the `maximize` option is misleading. It currently reads as if the parameters would we maximized, which is factually incorrect. This PR proposes a more clear description. Pull Request resolved: pytorch#112724 Approved by: https://github.com/albanD
While reading the documentation of the optimizers I noticed the description of the
maximize
option is misleading. It currently reads as if the parameters would we maximized, which is factually incorrect. This PR proposes a more clear description.