Nothing wrong with it from a technical perspective. I have a proof of correctness and we tested the proverbial out of it.
The issue was that David Harvey expressed concerns over a policy issue. The code he provided on his website was not intended for a full production release and was marked as such. We had a discussion about it and decided that we needed a new policy regarding code inclusion in MPIR. Under that new policy, the old dc_divappr_q_n.c was not suitable for inclusion. I made the decision to not issue a full production release of MPIR with that code in there. A similar policy will be applied to all future code not explicitly contributed to MPIR, in fairness to people writing such code. Bill. 2009/11/16 Jeff Gilchrist <[email protected]>: > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Bill Hart <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Delivery of MPIR 1.3.0 is still at least two weeks out as we still >> haven't had anyone write a new dc_divappr_q_n.c file. At this stage we >> are hoping Jason Moxham might find the time in the next two weeks. We >> will need to go through an entire new cycle of testing before we can >> release that. > > I must have missed this, but what was the issue with the old > dc_divappr_q_n.c file? The timing will be good for me as I'm > currently preparing for my PhD thesis proposal defence next week. > After that things will return more to normal and I will have time to > re-test the 1.3.0 release on all my systems. > > Jeff. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
