Yeah, I'm suggesting that any discussion about Colt/cMath/etc be for 0.3, not now. The changes in M-165 don't require any library changes - they're all internal to Mahout's vector impls.
-jake On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't have a strong view on Colt vs anything else. The only thing > that would concern me here would be to let this block 0.2, if it's not > even fully clear what the change will be, or implemented or tested. > This is months off at this rate? Without a clear picture that this is > getting wrapped up in a week, I'd strongly push the modest suggestion > that it simply not be part of 0.2. Absolutely not saying it shouldn't > be done. Not even saying it should be done soon -- I think 0.3 should > follow soon and in general we should release more often. > > We're another week on in the discussion about releasing 0.2. Two folks > seem ready to go. May I ask again what it seems 0.2 can't be released > without? Having put a load of changes I'm keen to get into the wild > myself, I'm aware of the drawbacks to letting this drag on a while. I > really feel like people have "1.0" in mind when they say "0.2". This > definitely doesn't need to be perfect, just roughly stable and a > significant iteration over 0.1, and it is. > > Could I ask anyone that really wants this issue to be in 0.2 to at > least name a deadline and create a plan to make it happen? seems like > a reasonable request now. Otherwise it's 0.3. > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> > wrote: > > I think 165 needs to be in this release, it is a pretty big performance > > issue. I'm leaning towards the Colt stuff at the moment. Perhaps in > 0.3, > > we can refocus on how we want to attack the matrix stuff. > > >
