Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
When GKOP or GOP pools lack capacity, addObject does nothing. In
some cases (I am dealing with one now internally to GKOP), it would
be good to know if an instance was actually added or not. How about
changing the interface (both OP and KOP versions) to
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-functor has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
Commons Parent 22 is now in Maven Central.
Components that upgrade to this release should note the following:
Starting with version 22, the RAT plugin has changed Maven group and
id, so any existing configuration needs to be updated.
To fix component POMs, please change any occurrences of:
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 06:25:13AM +0200, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently working on MATH-662. So far, I have merged
CholeskyDecomposition and CholeskyDecompositionImpl. My question is
very simple: CholeskyDecomposition exists as an interface since
version 2.0 (as indicated in the
Maybe that tag should be removed (drastic... but no possible confusion!).
Sébastien
2011/9/21 Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 06:25:13AM +0200, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently working on MATH-662. So far, I have merged
CholeskyDecomposition and
Why not just add some text to the tag to explain what has happened?
Something like:
@since 2.0 (changed to concrete class in 3.0)
2011/9/21 Sébastien Brisard sebastien.bris...@m4x.org:
Maybe that tag should be removed (drastic... but no possible confusion!).
Sébastien
2011/9/21 Gilles
Yes, that would be clear enough.
Sébastien
2011/9/21 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
Why not just add some text to the tag to explain what has happened?
Something like:
@since 2.0 (changed to concrete class in 3.0)
2011/9/21 Sébastien Brisard sebastien.bris...@m4x.org:
Maybe that tag should be
Project reports are now generated in random order.
This started with site plugin version 2.3; CP 21 used site plugin 2.2
so did not show the problem behaviour.
Order of reports in M2 apparently comes from Maven core:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5140
Apparently will be fixed in Maven
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:55 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Project reports are now generated in random order.
This started with site plugin version 2.3; CP 21 used site plugin 2.2
so did not show the problem behaviour.
Order of reports in M2 apparently comes from Maven core:
On 9/21/11 5:23 AM, sebb wrote:
Why not just add some text to the tag to explain what has happened?
Something like:
@since 2.0 (changed to concrete class in 3.0)
+1
Phil
2011/9/21 Sébastien Brisard sebastien.bris...@m4x.org:
Maybe that tag should be removed (drastic... but no possible
Done in r1173788.
Sébastien
2011/9/21 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com:
On 9/21/11 5:23 AM, sebb wrote:
Why not just add some text to the tag to explain what has happened?
Something like:
@since 2.0 (changed to concrete class in 3.0)
+1
Phil
2011/9/21 Sébastien Brisard
Hello All,
In MathUtils there exists the method:
public static boolean checkOrder(double[] val, OrderDirection dir,
boolean strict, boolean abort) {
...code omitted...
}
I would like to replace it with the method:
public static boolean
Meant to say add, not replace. My apologies. -Greg
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Greg Sterijevski gsterijev...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello All,
In MathUtils there exists the method:
public static boolean checkOrder(double[] val, OrderDirection dir,
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=12409projectId=98
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Wed 21 Sep 2011 22:20:17 +
Finished at: Wed 21 Sep 2011 22:23:45 +
Total time: 3m 27s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Hi.
In MathUtils there exists the method:
public static boolean checkOrder(double[] val, OrderDirection dir,
boolean strict, boolean abort) {
...code omitted...
}
I would like to replace it with the method:
public static boolean
The reason I am looking at checkOrder is your suggestion for
UpdatingMultipleLinearRegression, eg checking if the variables are presented
in monotonically increasing order...
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Gilles Sadowski
gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 05:17:59PM
Gilles,
I do not understand why a non-monotone collection should throw a
IllegalArgumentException...? There is nothing wrong with the argument, it
just is not in corrected order. Wouldn't it be better to return a false?
We have:
if (!ok abort) {
throw new
On 9/21/11 4:33 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
Gilles,
I do not understand why a non-monotone collection should throw a
IllegalArgumentException...? There is nothing wrong with the argument, it
just is not in corrected order. Wouldn't it be better to return a false?
I think as you guys are
If there are no objections, I will move the body of the current
checkOrder(double[] arg, ...) into a isMonotone method. I will also create a
parallel set of checkOrder, isMonotone functions for Comparable[] arrays.
-Greg
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
One more question, there is a boolean argument called 'abort', what sense
does it make to keep checking an array given you have found one observation
which violates monotonicity? I think abort is redundant and could be
eliminated. Thoughts?
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Phil Steitz
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=12413projectId=98
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 22 Sep 2011 01:20:16 +
Finished at: Thu 22 Sep 2011 01:23:42 +
Total time: 3m 25s
Build Trigger: Schedule
On 9/21/11 6:11 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
One more question, there is a boolean argument called 'abort', what sense
does it make to keep checking an array given you have found one observation
which violates monotonicity? I think abort is redundant and could be
eliminated. Thoughts?
Looks
Any objections to fixing this?
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/21/11 6:11 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
One more question, there is a boolean argument called 'abort', what sense
does it make to keep checking an array given you have found one
24 matches
Mail list logo
