Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:51:05 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote: On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Gilles wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:18:36 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > On Oct 12, 2016, at

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Gilles wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:18:36 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ralph Goers >> wrote: >> >>> >>> > On Oct 12, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Gilles

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:18:36 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > On Oct 12, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Gilles wrote: > > IIRC, many PMC members did not "like" the idea of having more > components.

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > > > On Oct 12, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Gilles > wrote: > > > > IIRC, many PMC members did not "like" the idea of having more > > components. > > Even less so if those components are being

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Gilles wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 19:37:20 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> On Oct 12, 2016 4:17 PM, "Gilles" wrote: >> >>> >>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:44:26 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: >>> On

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

> On Oct 12, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Gilles wrote: > > IIRC, many PMC members did not "like" the idea of having more > components. > Even less so if those components are being extracted from Commons > Math. > The least "problematic" one, Commons RNG, barely collected the

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 19:37:20 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: On Oct 12, 2016 4:17 PM, "Gilles" wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:44:26 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: On Oct 12, 2016 3:34 PM, "Gilles" wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 22:48:49

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 19:37:20 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: On Oct 12, 2016 4:17 PM, "Gilles" wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:44:26 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: On Oct 12, 2016 3:34 PM, "Gilles" wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 22:48:49

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

On Oct 12, 2016 4:17 PM, "Gilles" wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:44:26 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: >> >> On Oct 12, 2016 3:34 PM, "Gilles" wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 22:48:49 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:44:26 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: On Oct 12, 2016 3:34 PM, "Gilles" wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 22:48:49 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 12/10/2016 à 18:45, Gilles a écrit : So, what you say in substance is that you'd rather _wait_ for

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 19:18:50 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi Gilles, Gilles wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:57:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 12/10/2016 à 16:15, Gilles a écrit : The 3.x line is obsolete. No new feature or bug-fix should be introduced there. Hi Gilles, I understand you

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

On Oct 12, 2016 3:34 PM, "Gilles" wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 22:48:49 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> >> Le 12/10/2016 à 18:45, Gilles a écrit : >> >>> So, what you say in substance is that you'd rather _wait_ for >>> someone to come by who will want to work with

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 22:48:49 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 12/10/2016 à 18:45, Gilles a écrit : So, what you say in substance is that you'd rather _wait_ for someone to come by who will want to work with you on 3.x, rather than continue with people, here and now, a work (CM4) that started

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

Le 12/10/2016 à 18:45, Gilles a écrit : > So, what you say in substance is that you'd rather _wait_ for > someone to come by who will want to work with you on 3.x, rather > than continue with people, here and now, a work (CM4) that > started more than 3 years ago. To be clear, I have no plan to

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

Hi Gilles, Gilles wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:57:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> Le 12/10/2016 à 16:15, Gilles a écrit : >> >>> The 3.x line is obsolete. >>> No new feature or bug-fix should be introduced there. >> >> Hi Gilles, >> >> I understand you don't want to invest time in

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:26:23 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote: On Oct 12, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 12/10/2016 à 16:15, Gilles a écrit : The 3.x line is obsolete. No new feature or bug-fix should be introduced there. Hi Gilles, I understand you don't want to

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:57:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 12/10/2016 à 16:15, Gilles a écrit : The 3.x line is obsolete. No new feature or bug-fix should be introduced there. Hi Gilles, I understand you don't want to invest time in maintaining the 3.x line and I respect that, but

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

> On Oct 12, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > >> Le 12/10/2016 à 16:15, Gilles a écrit : >> >> The 3.x line is obsolete. >> No new feature or bug-fix should be introduced there. > > Hi Gilles, > > I understand you don't want to invest time in maintaining the 3.x

Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line

Le 12/10/2016 à 16:15, Gilles a écrit : > The 3.x line is obsolete. > No new feature or bug-fix should be introduced there. Hi Gilles, I understand you don't want to invest time in maintaining the 3.x line and I respect that, but others might be interested. I don't think pushing minor bug fixes

[Math] Changes on the 3.x line

Hi. The 3.x line is obsolete. No new feature or bug-fix should be introduced there. Regards, Gilles - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org