New package: Lowess v0.1.0

[JuliaRegistrator]

• Registering package: Lowess
• Repository: https://github.com/xKDR/Lowess.jl
• Created by: @codetalker7
• Version: v0.1.0
• Commit: e496eedf0d514a7bf8ea84bdba6576d4537f4ea3
• Git reference: main
• Description: Hand translated version of Cleveland's Lowess.c
• Release notes:

Initial release.

[github-actions[bot]]

Your new package pull request does not meet the guidelines for auto-merging. Please make sure that you have read the General registry README and the AutoMerge guidelines. The following guidelines were not met:

• Package name similar to 1 existing package.
  1. Similar to Loess. Damerau-Levenshtein distance 1 is at or below cutoff of 2. Damerau-Levenshtein distance 1 between lowercased names is at or below cutoff of 1.

Note that the guidelines are only required for the pull request to be merged automatically. However, it is strongly recommended to follow them, since otherwise the pull request needs to be manually reviewed and merged by a human.

After you have fixed the AutoMerge issues, simple retrigger Registrator, which will automatically update this pull request. You do not need to change the version number in your Project.toml file (unless of course the AutoMerge issue is that you skipped a version number, in which case you should change the version number).

If you do not want to fix the AutoMerge issues, please post a comment explaining why you would like this pull request to be manually merged.

Since you are registering a new package, please make sure that you have also read the package naming guidelines: https://julialang.github.io/Pkg.jl/dev/creating-packages/#Package-naming-guidelines-1

---

If you want to prevent this pull request from being auto-merged, simply leave a comment. If you want to post a comment without blocking auto-merging, you must include the text [noblock] in your comment.

[ViralBShah]

Any thoughts here @nalimilan @andreasnoack @joshday ? The upstream R version is called Lowess, and given that this is almost the same functionality, should we override?

Alternately, any suggestions for other names?

(Edited to update typos)

[nalimilan]

What do you mean? R has both loess and lowess. JuliaStats has Loess.jl, and indeed it could make sense to implement both methods in the same package, with a more general name.

[ViralBShah]

So best to integrate the contents of Lowess.jl into Loess.jl?

[nalimilan]

That would probably be OK. Or find a new name for the package providing both.

[ayushpatnaikgit]

So best to integrate the contents of Lowess.jl into Loess.jl? I'll do a PR to add Lowess to Loess. It seems appropriate. We can discuss further over there.

[ViralBShah]

@ayushpatnaikgit Is this a package you plan to manage? I am happy to get it merged if so, since it is unlikely that we can get the review done to incorporate it into Loess.jl.

@andreasnoack @nalimilan Wanted to make sure you see this and would agree.

[nalimilan]

Yeah better merge this for now, the package can be deprecated if the features get included in Loess.jl at some point.

[ayushpatnaikgit]

@ayushpatnaikgit Is this a package you plan to manage? I am happy to get it merged if so, since it is unlikely that we can get the review done to incorporate it into Loess.jl.

@andreasnoack @nalimilan Wanted to make sure you see this and would agree.

Hi Viral, yes, @codetalker7 and I will manage this package. I also think it's unlikely that it'll get merged with Loess.

Can you please merge this?