Re: [Vote] Create a "machine learning" component

Hi Avijit Basak, +1 to thanking you for your offer. Just a couple of comments from someone who is only a marginal contributor to the commons project. I would be keen to see a new commons component incorporating various machine learning/data science components. The other main contenders that seem

Re: [geometry] 1.0-beta2

Hi Alex, First of all, thanks for all of the work you've done here! Second, I vote to go with the fast dot2s implementation for LinearCombination and use it as a static method in commons-geometry. The reason is that the scale of accuracy improvements we're talking about here is not going to

Re: [all] OSS Fuzz

Done in imaging! Thanks https://github.com/apache/commons-imaging/pull/130 Bruno On Wednesday, 21 April 2021, 2:27:38 am NZST, Fabian Meumertzheim wrote: The first OSS-Fuzz build passed and some bugs have already been created. Everything looks good from my side, but let me know if

Re: [all] OSS Fuzz

I see that now. Thanks for handling the ticket! On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 11:38, sebb wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 17:22, Matt Sicker wrote: > > > > I've tried adding that email to the allow-subscribe list for that > > mailing list. Let's see if the next messages get through without > >

Re: [all] OSS Fuzz

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 17:22, Matt Sicker wrote: > > I've tried adding that email to the allow-subscribe list for that > mailing list. Let's see if the next messages get through without > moderation now. As already noted, the Return-Path is different for each email - have a look at the headers

Re: [geometry] 1.0-beta2

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 13:51, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > Hi Alex. > > Le mar. 20 avr. 2021 à 11:17, Alex Herbert a > écrit : > > > > [...] > > I'm a bit lost in all these bits... ;-) > I also had to remind myself of the work since it was a long time ago. > > > Any opinions on how changing

Re: [all] OSS Fuzz

I've tried adding that email to the allow-subscribe list for that mailing list. Let's see if the next messages get through without moderation now. On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 10:46, Matt Sicker wrote: > > I've accepted all the moderation requests so far, though I also get > CC'd on the same emails,

Re: [all] OSS Fuzz

I've accepted all the moderation requests so far, though I also get CC'd on the same emails, so my inbox is a little messy at the moment to verify that it's going through the mailing list, too. There's already been like 20 alerts found, so good call on the separate mailing list! :) On Tue, 20 Apr

Re: [all] OSS Fuzz

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 16:34, Fabian Meumertzheim wrote: > > I think that the sender address has been monorail+v2.382749...@chromium.org > for > me since February, so it might be more stable than it looks. Yes, but ezmlm uses the envelope sender, i.e. the Return-Path. At least the current ones

Re: [all] OSS Fuzz

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 16:30, Matt Sicker wrote: > > Guess we'll have to ask infra then. They probably have a way to filter > based on regex or something. I just remembered we had to do something similar for Travis and Twitter, see INFRA-18843 and INFRA-19360 Are you going to accept the

Re: [all] OSS Fuzz

I think that the sender address has been monorail+v2.382749...@chromium.org for me since February, so it might be more stable than it looks. On Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 17:30 Matt Sicker wrote: > Guess we'll have to ask infra then. They probably have a way to filter > based on regex or something. > >

Re: [all] OSS Fuzz

Guess we'll have to ask infra then. They probably have a way to filter based on regex or something. On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 10:05, sebb wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 15:53, Matt Sicker wrote: > > > Looks like we need to add the bot email as an allowed sender to the list. > > > > Easier said

Re: [Vote] Create a "machine learning" component

Le mar. 20 avr. 2021 à 16:09, Avijit Basak a écrit : > > Hi > > > Did you ask "Spark" people about their opinion about it? > -- Not yet. I am not sure what would be the right option for > this communication. It will be good if you can approach them. You are the one who

Re: [all] OSS Fuzz

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 15:53, Matt Sicker wrote: > Looks like we need to add the bot email as an allowed sender to the list. > Easier said than done, as email appears to use a dynamic address. > Otherwise, I’ve seen the alerts start already  > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 09:27 Fabian

Re: [all] OSS Fuzz

Looks like we need to add the bot email as an allowed sender to the list. Otherwise, I’ve seen the alerts start already  On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 09:27 Fabian Meumertzheim < meumertzh...@code-intelligence.com> wrote: > The first OSS-Fuzz build passed and some bugs have already been created. >

Re: [all] OSS Fuzz

The first OSS-Fuzz build passed and some bugs have already been created. Everything looks good from my side, but let me know if you have any questions. One more thing: Could you perhaps add the following line to the READMEs of compress and imaging? [![Fuzzing Status](

Re: [Vote] Create a "machine learning" component

Hi > Did you ask "Spark" people about their opinion about it? -- Not yet. I am not sure what would be the right option for this communication. It will be good if you can approach them. > where it can be used in real-life (performance-wise) applications, then you

Re: [geometry] 1.0-beta2

Hi Alex. Le mar. 20 avr. 2021 à 11:17, Alex Herbert a écrit : > > [...] I'm a bit lost in all these bits... ;-) > Any opinions on how changing LinearComination may affect Geometry? Either > we clean up the implementation to use the fast dot2s algorithm with correct > support for splitting

JDK 17 Early Acces build 18 is available

*Hi Benedikt, * *OpenJDK 17 Early Access build 18is now available at **https://jdk.java.net/17 * * These early-access , open-source builds are provided under the o GNU General Public License, version 2, with the Classpath Exception

Re: [geometry] 1.0-beta2

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 22:30, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > Le lun. 19 avr. 2021 à 20:26, Matt Juntunen > > > What needs to be done on numbers before we're ready for > > 1.0 (aside from moving over some code from geometry)? > > The most basic utilities haven't fundamentally changed. It > will be