On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 16:07:41 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Rob Tompkins wrote:
Given that the long term goals of commons-math are fairly uncertain,
would like to attempt working with some short term goals. The hope
to think about questions along the lines of: "what can be done
week/this month,” with the goal aiming at chipping away at what I’ll
for lack of a better term, technical debt. I have a couple of
am curious to see what folks generally think here. Here are some
that immediately come to mind:
Items achievable in a few hours:
Move to the develop branch to the master branch.
Get travis-ci/coveralls working for pull requests.
Items achievable in a few days:
Deprecation of the packages that duplicate functionality with
+1 ... normally. However, IIRC correctly, Gilles once said that all
stuff was never part of a release.
was created in the development branch (released CM code was from
the "MATH_3_X" branch) intended for work towards v4.0 (which
started in early 2015, by removing long deprecated codes).
It was a complete rewrite (with fixes, extensions, additions, and
removals) of code from
which has existed for a long time, and was named
in branch MATH_3_X
IIUC, Rob means to deprecate, in branch "MATH_3_X", codes in
that could be replaced by equivalent functionality defined
in Commons RNG.
A minor release of CM3 would warn users about the changes to
If they use the functionality from
in their own codes, they will already be able to upgrade
(to Commons RNG).
But if they use CM3 generators as arguments in calls to CM3,
then no replacements will be available, as only (unreleased)
CM4 can be (and has been) upgraded to depend on Commons RNG.
P.S. Your +1 vote was a pleasant surprise; thanks!
In that case this code can be simply
Obvious bug fixes.
Items achievable in a month(s) or so.
A release 3.6.2 with the deprecation of the overlap with
Some solidifying of the more base level functionality such that we
be able to rely upon commons-math as the core of the mathematical
functionality for commons generally (if we do indeed intend to have
modularized mathematical commons functionality).
All that said, these are just thoughts, and I’m completely open
direction here but want to avoid letting the project sit latent for
long. I was just thinking that with so much uncertainty for the
it might be better to just be intentionally short sighted with the
of gaining some momentum and let natural evolution begin to take
What do you guys think?
Fine. Thanks for taking responsibility.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org