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 2012/12/20 11:26:23 UTC
[VOTE][RC5] Release Commons Math 3.1
Hi.
Please have a look at the next candidate (RC5), and vote for the release
of Commons Math 3.1.
----------
Tag:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_3_1_RC5/
Site:
http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/3.1/RC5/
Binaries:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-052/org/apache/commons/commons-math3/3.1/
[ ] +1 Release it.
[ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
[ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
[ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
This vote will close in 72 hours.
----------
Thanks,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][RC5] Release Commons Math 3.1
Posted by Sébastien Brisard <se...@m4x.org>.
2012/12/20 Gilles Sadowski <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
> Hi.
>
> Please have a look at the next candidate (RC5), and vote for the release
> of Commons Math 3.1.
>
> ----------
> Tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_3_1_RC5/
>
> Site:
> http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/3.1/RC5/
>
> Binaries:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-052/org/apache/commons/commons-math3/3.1/
>
> [X] +1 Release it.
> [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
> [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
> [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
>
Thanks Gilles. I agree about the "enum" fields ("ALPHA", "BETA", etc).
These were widely discussed on the ML before we proceeded.
Sébastien
Re: [VOTE][RC5] Release Commons Math 3.1
Posted by Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de>.
Hi Gilles,
Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Please have a look at the next candidate (RC5), and vote for the release
> of Commons Math 3.1.
>
> ----------
> Tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_3_1_RC5/
>
> Site:
> http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/3.1/RC5/
>
> Binaries:
>
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-052/org/apache/commons/commons-
math3/3.1/
>
> [X] +1 Release it.
> [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
> [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
> [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
Builds fine from source with my compiler zoo. JDK 5 builds have 10 unit
tests less running, I did not investigate, but as all my 1.5 JDKs behave the
same, I suppose this is OK. Regarding the enums it is OK for me if their
supposed usage was internal.
Cheers,
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
[VOTE][RESULT] Release Commons Math 3.1
Posted by Gilles Sadowski <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
The request to release Commons Math 3.1 based on the following tag:
> Tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_3_1_RC5/
was accepted. There were 5 positive votes:
Luc Maisonobe +1
Thomas Neidhart +1
Sébastien Brisard +1
Phil Steitz +1
Jörg Schaible +1
(among which 4 are binding).
Thanks to everyone,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][RC5] Release Commons Math 3.1
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 12/20/12 2:26 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Please have a look at the next candidate (RC5), and vote for the release
> of Commons Math 3.1.
>
> ----------
> Tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_3_1_RC5/
>
> Site:
> http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/3.1/RC5/
>
> Binaries:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-052/org/apache/commons/commons-math3/3.1/
>
> [x] +1 Release it.
> [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
> [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
> [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
>
> This vote will close in 72 hours.
Thanks, Gilles!
Phil
> ----------
>
>
> Thanks,
> 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: [VOTE][RC5] Release Commons Math 3.1
Posted by luc <lu...@spaceroots.org>.
Le 2012-12-20 11:26, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
> Hi.
>
> Please have a look at the next candidate (RC5), and vote for the
> release
> of Commons Math 3.1.
>
> ----------
> Tag:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_3_1_RC5/
>
> Site:
> http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/3.1/RC5/
>
> Binaries:
>
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-052/org/apache/commons/commons-math3/3.1/
>
> [X] +1 Release it.
Very good, thanks Gilles.
Luc
> [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
> [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
> [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
>
> This vote will close in 72 hours.
> ----------
>
>
> Thanks,
> 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: [VOTE][RC5] Release Commons Math 3.1
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 12/21/12 4:09 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Gilles Sadowski <
> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:17:59AM +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
>>> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> Please have a look at the next candidate (RC5), and vote for the
>> release
>>>> of Commons Math 3.1.
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> Tag:
>>>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_3_1_RC5/
>>>> Site:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/3.1/RC5/
>>>>
>>>> Binaries:
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-052/org/apache/commons/commons-math3/3.1/
>>>> [ ] +1 Release it.
>>>> [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
>>>> [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
>>>> [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
>>>>
>>>> This vote will close in 72 hours.
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this is not yet my vote, just a request for clarification.
>>>
>>> I checked again the Clirr errors, and there are still the two related to
>>> the probability method in LogNormal and NormalDistribution.
>>>
>>> In 3.0, there was a method with only 1 parameter, which always returned
>> 0.
>>> Now there is a probability method with two parameters, which is defined
>> in
>>> the implemented interface AbstractRealDistribution.
>> And... there is a method with one parameter that always return zero in the
>> _parent_ class. Any code the calls the one-arg "probablility" method will
>> get the same result (i.e zero) as before.
>>
>>> You mentioned that this is a false positive, but I doubt this.
>> Why?
>>
>>> Maybe the
>>> probability method was never used,
>> It was not used in CM, but that would not be a good excuse I guess. ;-)
>>
>>> but then it should at least be mentioned
>>> in the release notes.
>> As I indicated previously, if this is a false positive, there is doubtful
>> usefulness to explaining a bug in a reporting tool.
>>
> Hi Gilles,
>
> you are right, sorry I missed the inherited method.
I think Clirr was not able to handle the fact that in 3.0 the
single-argument version was implemented in these classes. In 3.1 a
default impl was provided in the parent and these classes dropped
local impls. So if you just look at the classes Clirr is
complaining about before and after it looks like we just added an
argument.
Phil
>
> So then +1 from my side too.
>
> Thomas
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][RC5] Release Commons Math 3.1
Posted by Thomas Neidhart <th...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Gilles Sadowski <
gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:17:59AM +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
> > gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > Please have a look at the next candidate (RC5), and vote for the
> release
> > > of Commons Math 3.1.
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > Tag:
> > >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_3_1_RC5/
> > >
> > > Site:
> > > http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/3.1/RC5/
> > >
> > > Binaries:
> > >
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-052/org/apache/commons/commons-math3/3.1/
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 Release it.
> > > [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
> > > [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
> > > [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
> > >
> > > This vote will close in 72 hours.
> > > ----------
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > this is not yet my vote, just a request for clarification.
> >
> > I checked again the Clirr errors, and there are still the two related to
> > the probability method in LogNormal and NormalDistribution.
> >
> > In 3.0, there was a method with only 1 parameter, which always returned
> 0.
> > Now there is a probability method with two parameters, which is defined
> in
> > the implemented interface AbstractRealDistribution.
>
> And... there is a method with one parameter that always return zero in the
> _parent_ class. Any code the calls the one-arg "probablility" method will
> get the same result (i.e zero) as before.
>
> >
> > You mentioned that this is a false positive, but I doubt this.
>
> Why?
>
> > Maybe the
> > probability method was never used,
>
> It was not used in CM, but that would not be a good excuse I guess. ;-)
>
> > but then it should at least be mentioned
> > in the release notes.
>
> As I indicated previously, if this is a false positive, there is doubtful
> usefulness to explaining a bug in a reporting tool.
>
Hi Gilles,
you are right, sorry I missed the inherited method.
So then +1 from my side too.
Thomas
Re: [VOTE][RC5] Release Commons Math 3.1
Posted by Gilles Sadowski <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:17:59AM +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > Please have a look at the next candidate (RC5), and vote for the release
> > of Commons Math 3.1.
> >
> > ----------
> > Tag:
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_3_1_RC5/
> >
> > Site:
> > http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/3.1/RC5/
> >
> > Binaries:
> >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-052/org/apache/commons/commons-math3/3.1/
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release it.
> > [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
> > [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
> > [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
> >
> > This vote will close in 72 hours.
> > ----------
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> this is not yet my vote, just a request for clarification.
>
> I checked again the Clirr errors, and there are still the two related to
> the probability method in LogNormal and NormalDistribution.
>
> In 3.0, there was a method with only 1 parameter, which always returned 0.
> Now there is a probability method with two parameters, which is defined in
> the implemented interface AbstractRealDistribution.
And... there is a method with one parameter that always return zero in the
_parent_ class. Any code the calls the one-arg "probablility" method will
get the same result (i.e zero) as before.
>
> You mentioned that this is a false positive, but I doubt this.
Why?
> Maybe the
> probability method was never used,
It was not used in CM, but that would not be a good excuse I guess. ;-)
> but then it should at least be mentioned
> in the release notes.
As I indicated previously, if this is a false positive, there is doubtful
usefulness to explaining a bug in a reporting tool.
Regards,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][RC5] Release Commons Math 3.1
Posted by Gilles Sadowski <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 01:13:48PM +0100, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 06:40:36AM -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 2012, at 4:18, Thomas Neidhart <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
> > > gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi.
> > >>
> > >> Please have a look at the next candidate (RC5), and vote for the release
> > >> of Commons Math 3.1.
> > >>
> > >> ----------
> > >> Tag:
> > >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_3_1_RC5/
> > >>
> > >> Site:
> > >> http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/3.1/RC5/
> > >>
> > >> Binaries:
> > >>
> > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-052/org/apache/commons/commons-math3/3.1/
> > >>
> > >> [ ] +1 Release it.
> > >> [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
> > >> [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
> > >> [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
> > >>
> > >> This vote will close in 72 hours.
> > >> ----------
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > this is not yet my vote, just a request for clarification.
> > >
> > > I checked again the Clirr errors, and there are still the two related to
> > > the probability method in LogNormal and NormalDistribution.
> > >
> > > In 3.0, there was a method with only 1 parameter, which always returned 0.
> > > Now there is a probability method with two parameters, which is defined in
> > > the implemented interface AbstractRealDistribution.
> > >
> > > You mentioned that this is a false positive, but I doubt this. Maybe the
> > > probability method was never used, but then it should at least be mentioned
> > > in the release notes.
> > >
> > > Sorry to be pedantic about this.
> >
> > Clirr lists 7 errors, so strictly speaking it does not looks like 3.1
> > is binary compatible with 3.0. I see these options:
>
> At the time of deleting the "enum" fields ("ALPHA", "BETA", etc), we got a
> green light, on the basis that those fields were only meant for CM's
> internal use.
>
> You are certainly right that someone who actually use those in his
> application will get into trouble; but then we knew that when we discussed
> the removal. We agreed that this situation was clear and not to be taken
> into account.
>
> For the reports on the method signature change, I've answered to Thomas's
> post.
> Could please someone point to a source other than Clirr if it is not
> satisfactory?
>
> >
> > 1) document 3.1 as not BC. This is not what we usually do in Commons.
> > 2) fix the clirr errors in the code. This is the safe option.
> > 3) make this a 4.0 releases and change the packages and maven
> > coordinates. This seems like a high price and likely not what the
> > [math] community intends for a real 4.0.
> >
So? In the unlikely event that someone complains about missing fields from
the "LocalizedFormats" enum, do we assume that binary compatibility does not
cover such things as using CM's "internal" classes (even if we cannot
enforce this restriction in Java)?
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][RC5] Release Commons Math 3.1
Posted by Gilles Sadowski <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 06:40:36AM -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2012, at 4:18, Thomas Neidhart <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
> > gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> Please have a look at the next candidate (RC5), and vote for the release
> >> of Commons Math 3.1.
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> Tag:
> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_3_1_RC5/
> >>
> >> Site:
> >> http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/3.1/RC5/
> >>
> >> Binaries:
> >>
> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-052/org/apache/commons/commons-math3/3.1/
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 Release it.
> >> [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
> >> [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
> >> [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
> >>
> >> This vote will close in 72 hours.
> >> ----------
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > this is not yet my vote, just a request for clarification.
> >
> > I checked again the Clirr errors, and there are still the two related to
> > the probability method in LogNormal and NormalDistribution.
> >
> > In 3.0, there was a method with only 1 parameter, which always returned 0.
> > Now there is a probability method with two parameters, which is defined in
> > the implemented interface AbstractRealDistribution.
> >
> > You mentioned that this is a false positive, but I doubt this. Maybe the
> > probability method was never used, but then it should at least be mentioned
> > in the release notes.
> >
> > Sorry to be pedantic about this.
>
> Clirr lists 7 errors, so strictly speaking it does not looks like 3.1
> is binary compatible with 3.0. I see these options:
At the time of deleting the "enum" fields ("ALPHA", "BETA", etc), we got a
green light, on the basis that those fields were only meant for CM's
internal use.
You are certainly right that someone who actually use those in his
application will get into trouble; but then we knew that when we discussed
the removal. We agreed that this situation was clear and not to be taken
into account.
For the reports on the method signature change, I've answered to Thomas's
post.
Could please someone point to a source other than Clirr if it is not
satisfactory?
Thanks,
Gilles
>
> 1) document 3.1 as not BC. This is not what we usually do in Commons.
> 2) fix the clirr errors in the code. This is the safe option.
> 3) make this a 4.0 releases and change the packages and maven
> coordinates. This seems like a high price and likely not what the
> [math] community intends for a real 4.0.
>
> Gary
>
>
> >
> > Thomas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE][RC5] Release Commons Math 3.1
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 21, 2012, at 4:18, Thomas Neidhart <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Please have a look at the next candidate (RC5), and vote for the release
>> of Commons Math 3.1.
>>
>> ----------
>> Tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_3_1_RC5/
>>
>> Site:
>> http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/3.1/RC5/
>>
>> Binaries:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-052/org/apache/commons/commons-math3/3.1/
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release it.
>> [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
>> [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
>> [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
>>
>> This vote will close in 72 hours.
>> ----------
>
> Hi,
>
> this is not yet my vote, just a request for clarification.
>
> I checked again the Clirr errors, and there are still the two related to
> the probability method in LogNormal and NormalDistribution.
>
> In 3.0, there was a method with only 1 parameter, which always returned 0.
> Now there is a probability method with two parameters, which is defined in
> the implemented interface AbstractRealDistribution.
>
> You mentioned that this is a false positive, but I doubt this. Maybe the
> probability method was never used, but then it should at least be mentioned
> in the release notes.
>
> Sorry to be pedantic about this.
Clirr lists 7 errors, so strictly speaking it does not looks like 3.1
is binary compatible with 3.0. I see these options:
1) document 3.1 as not BC. This is not what we usually do in Commons.
2) fix the clirr errors in the code. This is the safe option.
3) make this a 4.0 releases and change the packages and maven
coordinates. This seems like a high price and likely not what the
[math] community intends for a real 4.0.
Gary
>
> Thomas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][RC5] Release Commons Math 3.1
Posted by Thomas Neidhart <th...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Please have a look at the next candidate (RC5), and vote for the release
> of Commons Math 3.1.
>
> ----------
> Tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_3_1_RC5/
>
> Site:
> http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/3.1/RC5/
>
> Binaries:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-052/org/apache/commons/commons-math3/3.1/
>
> [ ] +1 Release it.
> [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
> [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
> [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
>
> This vote will close in 72 hours.
> ----------
>
Hi,
this is not yet my vote, just a request for clarification.
I checked again the Clirr errors, and there are still the two related to
the probability method in LogNormal and NormalDistribution.
In 3.0, there was a method with only 1 parameter, which always returned 0.
Now there is a probability method with two parameters, which is defined in
the implemented interface AbstractRealDistribution.
You mentioned that this is a false positive, but I doubt this. Maybe the
probability method was never used, but then it should at least be mentioned
in the release notes.
Sorry to be pedantic about this.
Thomas