Hi Bernd.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 11:44:05 +, Bernd Porr wrote:
Hi Eric,
how do we move this forward? I cannot commit to the CVS so shall I
send you patches and you work them in or what is the workflow?
For non-committer contributions, my preference is to have
files/patches attached to a
Hi Eric,
how do we move this forward? I cannot commit to the CVS so shall I send
you patches and you work them in or what is the workflow?
Best
/Bernd
On 26/10/16 13:48, Eric Barnhill wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Gilles
wrote:
It sounds like you
> On Oct 25, 2016, at 5:59 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> I am against spinning out org.apache.commons.math4.complex out into yet
> another component. The argument that Gilles refuses to
> support org.apache.commons.math4.complex because he does not want to
> support all of
e: 10/25/16 11:51 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [complex] commons-complex module
>
> Le 25/10/2016 à 17:46, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit :
> > Honestly, I really wonder why all this stuff has to fork yet another
>
Hi Eric.
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:48:17 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Gilles
wrote:
It sounds like you can create your new component on top of math4,
correct?
Would you rather reply to the technical arguments put forward in
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Gilles
wrote:
>
>> It sounds like you can create your new component on top of math4, correct?
>>
>
> Would you rather reply to the technical arguments put forward in the
> preceding paragraph?
>
> I've already answered your question
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:00:55 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Eric Barnhill
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
>
> I am against this constant spinning out.
>
> Gary
>
>
The proposed
Hi Gary.
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:59:27 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
I am against spinning out org.apache.commons.math4.complex out into
yet
another component. The argument that Gilles refuses to
support org.apache.commons.math4.complex because he does not want to
support all of
Hi all,
I agree that 'filter' is slightly problematic but I'd say because it's
been used in different contexts and often misleading. However, I cannot
think of a better word. That also depends where we place 2D image
processing. They are also called filters. For IIR , Kalman(and possibly
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Eric Barnhill
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I am against this constant spinning out.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
> The proposed commons-filter is not a spin out. There was one
I am against spinning out org.apache.commons.math4.complex out into yet
another component. The argument that Gilles refuses to
support org.apache.commons.math4.complex because he does not want to
support all of org.apache.commons.math4 in favor of supporting a COPY
of
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
>
> I am against this constant spinning out.
>
> Gary
>
>
The proposed commons-filter is not a spin out. There was one filter in math
and it didn't belong there. Now we have at least couple of people around
who know
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:32:20 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
Honestly, I really wonder why all this stuff has to fork yet another
commons component. IMO, CM could just have been changed to emit
multiple jar files
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:51:00 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 25/10/2016 à 17:46, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit :
Honestly, I really wonder why all this stuff has to fork yet another
commons component. IMO, CM could just have been changed to emit
multiple jar files with no need for other components.
Le 25/10/2016 à 18:20, dbrosIus a écrit :
> I think we should let the people doing the work, decide.
In general I agree with that, but there is a minimum level of formalism
to follow for creating new components. Otherwise Commons will just turn
into a GitHub/SourceForge clone inside Apache.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
> Honestly, I really wonder why all this stuff has to fork yet another
> commons component. IMO, CM could just have been changed to emit
> multiple jar files with no need for other components. No need for
>
I think we should let the people doing the work, decide.
Original message
From: Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org>
Date: 10/25/16 11:51 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [complex] commons-complex module
Le 25/
Le 25/10/2016 à 17:46, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit :
> Honestly, I really wonder why all this stuff has to fork yet another
> commons component. IMO, CM could just have been changed to emit
> multiple jar files with no need for other components. No need for
> discussions, no need for new repositories
Honestly, I really wonder why all this stuff has to fork yet another
commons component. IMO, CM could just have been changed to emit
multiple jar files with no need for other components. No need for
discussions, no need for new repositories in Git, no need for new
stuff in Jira. Or, to put it
Hi.
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 13:42:56 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote:
As the recent contribution shows the commons-math complex library
remains
quite useful to many applications.
Following in the footsteps of commons-rng, commons-complex seems like
a
good next component of math to spin out and
As the recent contribution shows the commons-math complex library remains
quite useful to many applications.
Following in the footsteps of commons-rng, commons-complex seems like a
good next component of math to spin out and actively maintain. I am willing
to oversee and maintain the project.
It
21 matches
Mail list logo