Same for me. Just provided a solution to unblock 1.7, but happy to go with a
2.0 if we others agree too.
I haven't followed much around the Java modules. But this is a good opportunity
to fix anything required for the new Java versions.
CheersBruno
On Thursday, 21 February 2019, 10:59:11 am NZDT, Rob Tompkins
<[email protected]> wrote:
Sounds reasonable. But I suppose the question we should ask ourselves is: do
we want a 1.7 or a 2.0? I’d be happy with either.
-Rob
> On Feb 20, 2019, at 4:56 PM, Bruno P. Kinoshita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> We have a few things ported from Lang that are deprecated and could be
> removed.
>
>
> But I have reverted my change in this pull request:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/commons-text/pull/102
>
>
> It introduces back the constant and the method removed, and also uses the old
> code for the edit distance. But the contributed new code is still there (i.e.
> I did not remove JaroWinklerSimilarity).
>
>
> This was suggested by another user in the pull request for TEXT-104, and I
> believe Benedikt and Rob also suggested something similar.
>
>
> So if there are no objections I will merge it later this tonight or tomorrow,
> and create a ticket in JIRA for 2.0 to replace the code, and fix the TODO
> tags.
>
>
> This way we can leave 2.0 for later, and possibly discuss other major changes
> like Java modules, changes for Java 11, etc.
>
>
> How does that sound?
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 21 February 2019, 10:50:36 am NZDT, Gary Gregory
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Are we really ready for a 2.0? How much deprecated stuff do we carry?
>
> I plan on taking a closer look at the jarod distance issue tonight or
> tomorrow.
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 13:33 Pascal Schumacher <[email protected]
> wrote:
>
>> I'm fine with either solution, but my preference would be to remove all
>> deprecated stuff and release version 2.0.
>>
>>> Am 20.02.2019 um 08:42 schrieb Bruno P. Kinoshita:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Just finished merging a pull request to TEXT-104, where the JaroWinkler
>> distance was updated. The class was actually computing a text similarity
>> score, not an edit distance. The user that contributed did a great job
>> moving the logic into a separate class, then updating the method to return
>> a distance instead.
>>> Later I realized this would break both behaviour and binary
>> compatibility.
>>> So just wondering what others think. Is it time to gather a few more
>> issues in text, maybe even consider updating libraries/java/etc, drop
>> @Deprecated stuff, and prepare a 2.0? Or is it too soon, and instead revert
>> moving the code to a branch, and update TEXT-104 with a note about the
>> branch?
>>> CheersBruno
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
