Hi.
Le ven. 18 oct. 2019 à 17:55, Claude Warren a écrit :
>
> I think the other discussion is getting a bit long so I thought we could
> start this discussion here and see if we can close out the other discussion
> with agreement on the remaining topics.
>
> The “Shape” of a bloom filter
I think the other discussion is getting a bit long so I thought we could
start this discussion here and see if we can close out the other discussion
with agreement on the remaining topics.
The “Shape” of a bloom filter (excluding the hash algo) is defined
mathematically by
Number of Items (AKA:
Hi All:
The upshot here (to me) is that we have an opportunity to help Mark by:
- Simply agreeing that it is OK to change the visibility of the method(s)
if appropriate tests are added, or:
- Provide a new API _somewhere_, presumably in the _best/right_ place that
fulfills his app's needs.
The
On 2019-10-18, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> My point/question was whether we do not already follow it.
We don't, at least not in all components.
Quite a few of our components don't have a patch number at all and they
sometimes create minor releases that would be patch releases if we
followed
Hi.
Le ven. 18 oct. 2019 à 14:31, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
>
> On 2019-10-18, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>
> > In another thread, the question was asked whether "Commons"
> > follows "SemVer".[1]
> > It seems to me that we (informally) abide by the intended goal.
> > Why not state it explicitly (and
Hi.
>>> [...]
> >
> > Maybe I was not clear enough: I'm not saying that we should prefer
> > some representation (of the state) over another; only that the how
> > the state is represented externally need not be the same as the internal
> > representation.
> >
> > But if the state is fully
On 2019-10-18, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> In another thread, the question was asked whether "Commons"
> follows "SemVer".[1]
> It seems to me that we (informally) abide by the intended goal.
> Why not state it explicitly (and make it a formal requirement for
> a release)?
To me it seems we have
+1 ensures interoperability for our users for minimal pain on our side.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:01 PM Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 18/10/2019 à 12:46, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
>
> > Why not state it explicitly (and make it a formal requirement for
> > a release)?
>
> -1, it restricts our
Le 18/10/2019 à 12:46, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
> Why not state it explicitly (and make it a formal requirement for
> a release)?
-1, it restricts our freedom for no real gain, we have enough
constraints already.
Emmanuel Bourg
Hello.
In another thread, the question was asked whether "Commons"
follows "SemVer".[1]
It seems to me that we (informally) abide by the intended goal.
Why not state it explicitly (and make it a formal requirement for
a release)?
Regards,
Gilles
[1] https://semver.org/
Le 18/10/2019 à 11:10, Xeno Amess a écrit :
> Do commons follow semver?
No but we care about backward compatibility.
Emmanuel Bourg
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
Do commons follow semver?
Emmanuel Bourg 于 2019年10月18日周五 下午5:05写道：
> Le 18/10/2019 à 10:52, sebb a écrit :
>
> > As noted in the OP, the change was part of changing the package name.
>
> If the visibility change triggered a regression I think it should be
> reverted.
>
> Emmanuel bourg
>
>
Le 18/10/2019 à 10:52, sebb a écrit :
> As noted in the OP, the change was part of changing the package name.
If the visibility change triggered a regression I think it should be
reverted.
Emmanuel bourg
-
To unsubscribe,
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 at 08:06, Claude Warren wrote:
>
> The change from public to private would indicate a major version change as
> it changes the API. Though I suppose this could also be done if code were
> being contributed to a project from outside. In which case the minor
> (middle) number
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 at 01:55, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> So I'm forced to add pass through methods to MethodGen? That seems a waste
> of effort and still requires testing. I repeat - you can already manipulate
> Attrbiutes - you should be able to manipulate Annotations in exactly the same
>
The change from public to private would indicate a major version change as
it changes the API. Though I suppose this could also be done if code were
being contributed to a project from outside. In which case the minor
(middle) number would have to have changed.
In either case changing from a
On 2019-10-18, Gary Gregory wrote:
> BZip2FileObject does not implement doGetContentSize() and always returns
> -1, which causes VFS to blow up if you try to read. Can this kind of
> content only be streamed?
First a "I'm not an expert in the bzip2 file format" disclaimer.
>From what I can tell
17 matches
Mail list logo
