{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sncosmo/sncosmo/issues/31","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sncosmo/sncosmo","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sncosmo/sncosmo/issues/31/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sncosmo/sncosmo/issues/31/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sncosmo/sncosmo/issues/31/events","html_url":"https://github.com/sncosmo/sncosmo/issues/31","id":36713950,"number":31,"title":"Add function chisq to fit_lc() arguments","user":{"login":"rbiswas4","id":2281358,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2281358?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/rbiswas4","html_url":"https://github.com/rbiswas4","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rbiswas4/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rbiswas4/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rbiswas4/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rbiswas4/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rbiswas4/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rbiswas4/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rbiswas4/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rbiswas4/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rbiswas4/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":5,"created_at":"2014-06-28T00:37:02Z","updated_at":"2017-01-23T02:17:57Z","closed_at":"2017-01-23T02:17:57Z","body":"It would be nice to be able to experiment with different Likelihood functions in fit_lc(). This could be done by extending the set of arguments to include a callable (perhaps with a defualt method) to use rather than the local fitchisq function defined within fit_lc() currently.\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sncosmo/sncosmo/issues/comments/274382128","html_url":"https://github.com/sncosmo/sncosmo/issues/31#issuecomment-274382128","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sncosmo/sncosmo/issues/31","id":274382128,"user":{"login":"kbarbary","id":970135,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/970135?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/kbarbary","html_url":"https://github.com/kbarbary","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kbarbary/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kbarbary/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kbarbary/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kbarbary/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kbarbary/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kbarbary/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kbarbary/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kbarbary/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/kbarbary/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2017-01-23T02:17:57Z","updated_at":"2017-01-23T02:17:57Z","body":"`fit_lc` is now sufficiently complicated that this doesn't make sense to have anymore: with model convariance, we are redefining the chisq function between each fit, so a single user-specified one doesn't make sense."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"kbarbary"}}