Hi Rob, Rob Tompkins wrote:
> > >> On Sep 18, 2016, at 7:22 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: >> >> Hello. >> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 16:07:41 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> Rob Tompkins wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> Given that the long term goals of commons-math are fairly uncertain, I >>>> would like to attempt working with some short term goals. The hope here >>>> is to think about questions along the lines of: "what can be done >>>> today/this week/this month,” with the goal aiming at chipping away at >>>> what I’ll call, for lack of a better term, technical debt. I have a >>>> couple of thoughts and am curious to see what folks generally think >>>> here. Here are some ideas 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. > > Given the lack of comments here, that feels like a "go for it.” But, I am > curious what the code in “master” represents? I ask because it seems that > it’s drifted considerably from the release of 3.6.1. > > If I do go down this road, I probably would keep the current master branch > around for a while labeled as “master-old-<dateOfChange>” (or something > along those lines). Current master is a dead end. We may actually move master to a 4.x branch and move 3.x back to master, since we we will have for the time being no further development in Math4 that justifies a break of API. >>>> Items achievable in a few days: >>>> Deprecation of the packages that duplicate functionality with >>>> commons-rng. >>> >>> +1 ... normally. However, IIRC correctly, Gilles once said that all the >>> RNG stuff was never part of a release. >> >> The package >> org.apache.commons.math4.rng >> 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 >> org.apache.commons.math4.random >> which has existed for a long time, and was named >> org.apache.commons.math3.random >> in branch MATH_3_X >> >> IIUC, Rob means to deprecate, in branch "MATH_3_X", codes in >> o.a.c.math3.random >> that could be replaced by equivalent functionality defined >> in Commons RNG. >> >> A minor release of CM3 would warn users about the changes to >> come. >> If they use the functionality from >> o.a.c.math3.random >> 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. > > This would precisely be the idea. If we are intent on modularization, then > we should slim down the commons-math library such that it contains no > duplications from other commons components. +1, that's IMHO the best "upgrade" path for existing Math users. > Lastly given those ideas, does anyone else have any ideas for what we can > do right now on commons-math? Well, there are a bunch of Gilles' ideas left ;-) Cheers, Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
