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 2009/12/11 16:48:21 UTC
One more colt question
Did all those deprecations come from Colt, or were they put in place
as part of the fork/cleanup process?
Re: One more colt question
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Have a look at my interim patch if you want to see me doing that.
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Depending on your thoughts of 0 / 0, we may already have tested them all
> with no tests.
>
> (but humor aside, I agree that deprecating the interfaces just because they
> don't have tests isn't necessary quite right. We might want to deprecate
> all unexamined interfaces until they are looked at)
>
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> OK, but you can't test an interface, can you?
>>
>> I'm incrementally removing them as I write some tests.
>>
>>
>
Re: One more colt question
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Depending on your thoughts of 0 / 0, we may already have tested them all
with no tests.
(but humor aside, I agree that deprecating the interfaces just because they
don't have tests isn't necessary quite right. We might want to deprecate
all unexamined interfaces until they are looked at)
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> OK, but you can't test an interface, can you?
>
> I'm incrementally removing them as I write some tests.
>
>
Re: One more colt question
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
OK, but you can't test an interface, can you?
I'm incrementally removing them as I write some tests.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Our thought was that we would remove the deprecations as we add the tests
> and in the meantime would have a continual nudge to do more testing.
>
> Colt came with no tests.
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They were put in place to mark that which doesn't have a unit test.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Did all those deprecations come from Colt, or were they put in place
>> > as part of the fork/cleanup process?
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ted Dunning, CTO
> DeepDyve
>
Re: One more colt question
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Our thought was that we would remove the deprecations as we add the tests
and in the meantime would have a continual nudge to do more testing.
Colt came with no tests.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They were put in place to mark that which doesn't have a unit test.
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Did all those deprecations come from Colt, or were they put in place
> > as part of the fork/cleanup process?
> >
>
--
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve
Re: One more colt question
Posted by Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com>.
They were put in place to mark that which doesn't have a unit test.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did all those deprecations come from Colt, or were they put in place
> as part of the fork/cleanup process?
>