2013/8/19 sebb seb...@gmail.com
The Groovy version used by JCI is very out of date.
I've updated it to the most recent of the 1.7 series, but since then
there has been 1.8 and 2.0, as well as 2.1.x which is the current
series.
Should JCI update to one of the more recent versions?
I
On 21 August 2013 07:58, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:
2013/8/19 sebb seb...@gmail.com
The Groovy version used by JCI is very out of date.
I've updated it to the most recent of the 1.7 series, but since then
there has been 1.8 and 2.0, as well as 2.1.x which is the current
If you are using Eclipse you can use conditional breakpoints for debug
logging.
Simply write to System.err and then return false in the break point
condition.
Works pretty well for simple debug messages.
2013/8/21 s...@apache.org
Author: sebb
Date: Wed Aug 21 08:43:40 2013
New Revision:
On 21 August 2013 09:48, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:
If you are using Eclipse you can use conditional breakpoints for debug
logging.
Simply write to System.err and then return false in the break point
condition.
Works pretty well for simple debug messages.
Thanks, I'll give
Before someone spend time rewriting the whole package, wouldn't we want the
ability to comment on a skeleton design that might not pass unit tests?
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013, Gilles wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:55:51 -0700, Ajo Fod wrote:
I agree that in general test are necessary to
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
But what is returned by the iterator is arrays and there is no
arithmetic going on. One thing I did think of was cutting out the
binomial coefficients from ArithmeticUtils and creating a
Combinatorics or
Good for you...
Yes just imagine if I'd to get every fix through committers. I'd never get
anything done here.
On the subject of this thread: I did not imply that an experimental
package would allow sloppy or undocumented code or bypass unit testing.
All (the above) things being equal, the
+1
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:42, Ajo Fod ajo@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you'll agree that as it stands, this makes CM capable of only
solving a subset the mathematical problems of what it can solve with a more
open policy.
The argument for alternative designs of the API
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:42:09 -0700, Ajo Fod wrote:
Good for you...
Yes just imagine if I'd to get every fix through committers. I'd
never get
anything done here.
Not every fix; commit to start with one.
I've spent a _lot_ of time detailing what you could do to go forward
with the issues
Hi.
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:23:52 + (UTC), Evan Ward (JIRA) wrote:
Evan Ward created MATH-1024:
---
Summary: LU and QR have different default singularity
thresholds
Key: MATH-1024
URL:
Hello,
but those who propose it must be ready to perform a _committer_ work
I wonder if this is correct, this is after all (a somewhat annoyingly broad)
discussion list. If somebody suggest a new API/Structure and backs it up even
with some working proof of concept code (which better explains
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:07:51 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Hello,
but those who propose it must be ready to perform a _committer_
work
I wonder if this is correct, this is after all (a somewhat annoyingly
broad) discussion list.
You seem to answer that below (nobody can expect such draft
Notwithstanding the fact that we would have to redeploy all the component
sites, wouldn't our URLs look better if we used the unadorned
commons.componentid? e.g.
http://commons.apache.org/proper/lang
http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/weaver
etc. ?
Matt
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:15 PM,
Argh, followed instructions at
http://commons.apache.org/site-publish.htmlas far as I can tell, but
[weaver]'s modules didn't come through. Do I
need to set the commons.scmPubUrl property for each module perhaps?
Matt
Maybe have a look at all redirect in .htaccess file :-)
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/cms-site/trunk/content/resources/.htaccess
On 22 August 2013 09:20, Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com wrote:
Notwithstanding the fact that we would have to redeploy all the component
sites, wouldn't
Interestingly, after making this change and publishing the website, it
doesn't seem to be working for [weaver]. :/
Matt
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:09 PM, mben...@apache.org wrote:
Author: mbenson
Date: Thu Aug 22 01:09:46 2013
New Revision: 1516350
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1516350
Didn't come through when published or locally?
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013, Matt Benson wrote:
Argh, followed instructions at
http://commons.apache.org/site-publish.htmlas far as I can tell, but
[weaver]'s modules didn't come through. Do I
need to set the commons.scmPubUrl property for
Seems to me that a more distributed change control system like git would
allow would-be contributors to put their code up for scrutiny without
having to create sandbox projects and the like.
If enough people get behind some patches, they could iterate faster and get
it checked into the mainline
18 matches
Mail list logo
