You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mahout.apache.org by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> on 2010/10/24 22:36:42 UTC
Go ahead with 532?
I pushed back the surefire version.
Re: Go ahead with 532?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
I just pushed a git repo with this version in it:
http://github.com/tdunning/LatentFactorLogLinear/tree/m-532
This should make testing slightly easier. I also have a test running on my
mac. It will be a while before it finishes
of course.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Drew Farris <dr...@apache.org> wrote:
> mvn -Prelease clean install
>
Re: Go ahead with 532?
Posted by Drew Farris <dr...@apache.org>.
+1, although it would be helpful if at least one other person did a
mvn -Prelease clean install
With the patch in place.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I pushed back the surefire version.
>
Re: Go ahead with 532?
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
No, there has been no respin. I could apply 524 and start the respin
process. I'd like to hear that others have seen 524 work usefully
first.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It sounds like a good idea to me. I am behind on doing any actual checking.
>
> Are the current 0.4 artifacts up to date with 524 and Drew's lib fix?
>
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I pushed back the surefire version.
>>
>
Re: Go ahead with 532?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
It sounds like a good idea to me. I am behind on doing any actual checking.
Are the current 0.4 artifacts up to date with 524 and Drew's lib fix?
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I pushed back the surefire version.
>