On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:17:59AM +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Gilles Sadowski < > gil...@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-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
