On Feb 18, 2013 1:16 AM, "Pedro Giffuni" <p...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hello; > > > Well, as you might imagine I am really tired of the flame storm that > went around the 0 ^ 0 issue. My intention here is not at all to re-start > that discussion. I really have much more fun things to do. > I am actualy a fan of Clint Eastwood so let me remember one of > my favorite movies ever. > > THE GOOD > > It didn't really take me long but I found a technical solution for the > dilemma. > > - The numerical issues were caused by a copy-paste error where the > C++ wrapper used int for the exponent instead of a double. Once > found it was trivial to fix. > > - Considering the "vetos" I still think they are invalid but I think they > both reflect a community concern so I have addressed it. > > The new patch [1] now defines in SAL's math.h the following: > > #define SAL_STRICTER_MATH > +1 thanks for doing this. It shows flexibility and respect for the community.
Now I hope, that some of those who have a profund knowledge of "backward compatility" also see a need to move a little bit. It would be very respectfull to have a tool to which the information was shared. I hope someone with knowledge makes a mwiki page with docs. procedures to test compatibility, that way we can discuss facts and not just words. rgds jan i > > This currently only affects the power function and acts as a > sort of "excel compatibility" flag. This is very simple at this time > but it fulfills it's task: you can easily change the behaviour > during compile time. > > It is actually an advance because having this in SAL gives us control: > our current behavior is platform dependent. > > THE UGLY > > The discussion so far has been centered around the default. I > consider myself agnostic in this case: I think that it is better > to use the stricter criteria and be compatible with MS Excel. > A lot of people worry about compatibility issues. > > With my FreeBSD hat on, I think in the unsupported platforms > (FreeBSD, OS2, Solaris) the compatibility issue isn't really a > concern (the ASF has never provided officially binaries) but > the Excel behaviour is useful for interoperability. > > I think the best option would be if existing users take a decision > before release what behaviour the want and if the case is to revert > we can add something like > > #if defined(WINOS) || defined(MACOSX) || defined(LINUX) > #defined SAL_STRICTER_MATH > #endif > > You get the idea. Doing this is rather ugly but I can live with it as > at least windows and MacOSX have the option to use Excel if they > want to be serious about math. > > I guess we could add it as a configure option but we already have > too many of them and even then there has to be a default. > > This is something I think the comunity has to decide on by voting > before the release. I won't take the decision but since I take care > for FreeBSD, I think we will opt for the Excel compatibility (I do > have to consult with Maho though). > > THE BAD > > (Please stop reading here if you are sensible to non-technical issues) > > First I should thank Greg Stein for clarifying the correct sense and reach > of the veto. I also want to thank people that have expressed their support > in private or public. It is clear to me that we are still too young as a community > in AOO and that people still have a long way to learn in matters of behaviour. > > I am not as much disappointed by the discussion (which I think > doesn't correspond to the impact of the patch) but by the fact that > I was not given the chance to work on it and that I have been > insulted in the process. > > I strongly complained when Dave's commit was reverted and I find > it absolutely unacceptable in the way it was done with me. First > of all the harassment: I am a volunteer, I am not here to receive > something in the lines of "Revert now or else ...", and second the > lack of respect for my work. > > It *is* rude, really ... I *don't* care much what happens with the patch, > if it should be disabled or not, but I DO want respect. > > I think I deserve reparation for the commit reversal: this shouldn't have > happened. I request the code be restated as it should have never been > reverted in the first place. This is all symbolical as there is a new version. > Once the new version is in, I will let anyone else decide if you guys > want to ifdef it or add a configure option or whatever: I don't really want > to be involved in this anymore. > > > I also want an assurance that this will never *ever* happen again (I am > talking about the revert, I guess bikesheds are unavoidable). > > If people really don't like my patches (yes, according to the Berne convention > I do own them) I will take them with me but I prefer if there is a civilized > discussion and not this circus we have been experiencing these last days. > > Pedro. > > [1] http://people.apache.org/~pfg/patches/patch-power00
