You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Gilles Sadowski <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> on 2012/09/12 14:04:21 UTC
Re: [Math] Towards release 3.1
Hello.
This thread was left alone for some time, although the main issue was not
settled: I requested the release of a new version of CM.
I quote my remarks from an earlier message in this thread:
> [...] issues resulted in some work being done, [...]
> My opinion is that releases must reflect that fact. Or, conversely, only
> "nothing new happened" is a reason for not providing a new release.
>
> Of course, there should be a balance between the work imposed by preparing a
> release, and the updated contents to be released. I think that the trade-off
> is already largely positive.
and
> > > "Wish" or "improvement" issues that miss a patch should not be blocking the
> > > 3.1 release.
and
> Of course, I'd be all for setting a date for release 3.2 too!
Context:
I have to abide by the requirement to use an _official_ release of CM and my
code relies on bug fixes present in the development version.
Are there any technical reasons to object to the starting of the release
process?
Thanks for your attention,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [Math] Towards release 3.1
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 12/09/2012 14:04, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
> Hello.
>
> This thread was left alone for some time, although the main issue was not
> settled: I requested the release of a new version of CM.
>
> I quote my remarks from an earlier message in this thread:
>
>> [...] issues resulted in some work being done, [...]
>> My opinion is that releases must reflect that fact. Or, conversely, only
>> "nothing new happened" is a reason for not providing a new release.
>>
>> Of course, there should be a balance between the work imposed by preparing a
>> release, and the updated contents to be released. I think that the trade-off
>> is already largely positive.
>
> and
>
>>>> "Wish" or "improvement" issues that miss a patch should not be blocking the
>>>> 3.1 release.
>
> and
>
>> Of course, I'd be all for setting a date for release 3.2 too!
>
> Context:
> I have to abide by the requirement to use an _official_ release of CM and my
> code relies on bug fixes present in the development version.
>
> Are there any technical reasons to object to the starting of the release
> process?
I would also be glad to see 3.1 out.
As far as I am concerned, the work on differentiation is almost ready.
If we can solve the silly problem I mentioned in another message a few
minutes ago, I would be happy to finish that and release 3.1.
Luc
>
>
> Thanks for your attention,
> Gilles
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [Math] Towards release 3.1
Posted by Sébastien Brisard <se...@m4x.org>.
> [...]
> I have been working on the stat package
> throws stuff. If I can have the weekend to finish, I could finish
> that; otherwise we release with this issue partly done (which is OK
> by me, as long as we push out the ticket).
>
I'm still working on the linear package, and there is still a lot to
do, I'm not sure I can go through it all y the weekend...
Sébastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [Math] Towards release 3.1
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 9/12/12 5:04 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> Hello.
>
> This thread was left alone for some time, although the main issue was not
> settled: I requested the release of a new version of CM.
>
> I quote my remarks from an earlier message in this thread:
>
>> [...] issues resulted in some work being done, [...]
>> My opinion is that releases must reflect that fact. Or, conversely, only
>> "nothing new happened" is a reason for not providing a new release.
>>
>> Of course, there should be a balance between the work imposed by preparing a
>> release, and the updated contents to be released. I think that the trade-off
>> is already largely positive.
> and
>
>>>> "Wish" or "improvement" issues that miss a patch should not be blocking the
>>>> 3.1 release.
> and
>
>> Of course, I'd be all for setting a date for release 3.2 too!
> Context:
> I have to abide by the requirement to use an _official_ release of CM and my
> code relies on bug fixes present in the development version.
>
> Are there any technical reasons to object to the starting of the release
> process?
I have a couple of things in progress (the KS test / distribution
issue, making EmpiricalDistribution implement the distribution
interface) that could wait if everything else is ready. All that is
*required* is that we resolve or push out all issues marked as 3.1.
We can always follow with 3.2 or 3.1.1 soon, so I see no harm to
getting this out quickly. I have been working on the stat package
throws stuff. If I can have the weekend to finish, I could finish
that; otherwise we release with this issue partly done (which is OK
by me, as long as we push out the ticket).
Phil
>
>
> Thanks for your attention,
> Gilles
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [Math] Towards release 3.1
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 12/09/2012 14:55, Thomas Neidhart a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Gilles Sadowski <
> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> This thread was left alone for some time, although the main issue was not
>> settled: I requested the release of a new version of CM.
>>
>> I quote my remarks from an earlier message in this thread:
>>
>>> [...] issues resulted in some work being done, [...]
>>> My opinion is that releases must reflect that fact. Or, conversely, only
>>> "nothing new happened" is a reason for not providing a new release.
>>>
>>> Of course, there should be a balance between the work imposed by
>> preparing a
>>> release, and the updated contents to be released. I think that the
>> trade-off
>>> is already largely positive.
>>
>> and
>>
>>>>> "Wish" or "improvement" issues that miss a patch should not be
>> blocking the
>>>>> 3.1 release.
>>
>> and
>>
>>> Of course, I'd be all for setting a date for release 3.2 too!
>>
>> Context:
>> I have to abide by the requirement to use an _official_ release of CM and
>> my
>> code relies on bug fixes present in the development version.
>>
>> Are there any technical reasons to object to the starting of the release
>> process?
>>
>
> Hi Gilles, all,
>
> I support the release request and we are already in September anyway (which
> was the envisioned release time of CM 3.1 afaikr).
> Regarding open issues from my side:
>
> * I would like to fix MATH-848 before the release but will have time the
> next 2 weeks
> * MATH-789: I did an initial analysis but failed to further proceed, maybe
> Luc can take a look?
I have done that (but Thomas will probably change the rank computation
as per another message).
> * MATH-842: the fix I made seems to work, but needs more investigation,
> can be postponed
> * MATH-819: more like a general problem and may be resolved as WONT FIX,
> TBD
>
> The additions I proposed can all be postponed (and I need something to do
> over winter ;-)
I have also completed the first batch of work about the new
differentiation framework. Now the core stuff is in place, and it is
used in both the solvers package and in the optimizer package.
I will add new things to this first batch, of course, but none of them
should postpone 3.1.
As far as I am concerned, 3.1 could be released anytime now.
Luc
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [Math] Towards release 3.1
Posted by Thomas Neidhart <th...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Gilles Sadowski <
gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> This thread was left alone for some time, although the main issue was not
> settled: I requested the release of a new version of CM.
>
> I quote my remarks from an earlier message in this thread:
>
> > [...] issues resulted in some work being done, [...]
> > My opinion is that releases must reflect that fact. Or, conversely, only
> > "nothing new happened" is a reason for not providing a new release.
> >
> > Of course, there should be a balance between the work imposed by
> preparing a
> > release, and the updated contents to be released. I think that the
> trade-off
> > is already largely positive.
>
> and
>
> > > > "Wish" or "improvement" issues that miss a patch should not be
> blocking the
> > > > 3.1 release.
>
> and
>
> > Of course, I'd be all for setting a date for release 3.2 too!
>
> Context:
> I have to abide by the requirement to use an _official_ release of CM and
> my
> code relies on bug fixes present in the development version.
>
> Are there any technical reasons to object to the starting of the release
> process?
>
Hi Gilles, all,
I support the release request and we are already in September anyway (which
was the envisioned release time of CM 3.1 afaikr).
Regarding open issues from my side:
* I would like to fix MATH-848 before the release but will have time the
next 2 weeks
* MATH-789: I did an initial analysis but failed to further proceed, maybe
Luc can take a look?
* MATH-842: the fix I made seems to work, but needs more investigation,
can be postponed
* MATH-819: more like a general problem and may be resolved as WONT FIX,
TBD
The additions I proposed can all be postponed (and I need something to do
over winter ;-)
Cheers,
Thomas
Re: [Math] Towards release 3.1
Posted by Sébastien Brisard <se...@m4x.org>.
Hi Gilles,
2012/9/12 Gilles Sadowski <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>:
> Hello.
>
> This thread was left alone for some time, although the main issue was not
> settled: I requested the release of a new version of CM.
>
> I quote my remarks from an earlier message in this thread:
>
>> [...] issues resulted in some work being done, [...]
>> My opinion is that releases must reflect that fact. Or, conversely, only
>> "nothing new happened" is a reason for not providing a new release.
>>
>> Of course, there should be a balance between the work imposed by preparing a
>> release, and the updated contents to be released. I think that the trade-off
>> is already largely positive.
>
> and
>
>> > > "Wish" or "improvement" issues that miss a patch should not be blocking the
>> > > 3.1 release.
>
> and
>
>> Of course, I'd be all for setting a date for release 3.2 too!
>
> Context:
> I have to abide by the requirement to use an _official_ release of CM and my
> code relies on bug fixes present in the development version.
>
> Are there any technical reasons to object to the starting of the release
> process?
>
If you did not have this precise requirement, I would have been a bit
reluctant to release 3.1 in the middle of MATH-854. Considering your
situation, I don't see any real objection on my side.
(Sparse vectors *will* be deprecated, as only Phil answered, but this
will wait until 3.2...).
Sébastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org