We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
If I process a multi-sweep data set I get
+------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+ | Imageset | # indexed | # unindexed | % indexed | |------------+-------------+---------------+-------------| | 0 | 44779 | 1495 | 96.8% | | 1 | 44658 | 1526 | 96.7% | | 2 | 44618 | 1526 | 96.7% | | 3 | 44278 | 1462 | 96.8% | | 4 | 44197 | 1622 | 96.5% | | 5 | 44604 | 1578 | 96.6% | +------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+
This is very nice as a summary
If I process multiple independent sweeps e.g. joint_index=nope I get
joint_index=nope
+------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+ | Imageset | # indexed | # unindexed | % indexed | |------------+-------------+---------------+-------------| | 0 | 108119 | 101412 | 51.6% | +------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+
Scattered throughout the log file: I appreciate that this is how it ended up being implemented however I think the former would be better.
This could be a good training wheels project for a new team member, say ;-)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
If I process a multi-sweep data set I get
This is very nice as a summary
If I process multiple independent sweeps e.g.
joint_index=nope
I getScattered throughout the log file: I appreciate that this is how it ended up being implemented however I think the former would be better.
This could be a good training wheels project for a new team member, say ;-)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: