RE: [all] NSWC and Apache license

+1 and by all means acknowledge the library - it might inspire further useful ports. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Sébastien Brisard [mailto:sebastien.bris...@m4x.org] Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 00:28 To: legal-disc...@apache.org Cc: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [all]

[DISCUSS] [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

I would like to understand what happened when the such a [VOTE] passed previously. Was no resolution developed and taken to the board? Was there a roadmap for how movement/forking of Commons Math would be undertaken and what the legacy at Commons Math might be? What is there that has the

[DISCUSS] [VOTE] Move Apache Commons Primitives to dormant

Exactly what does dormant status entail? What actions are taken to make something dormant? - Dennis > -Original Message- > From: Benedikt Ritter [mailto:brit...@apache.org] > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 08:18 > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: [VOTE] Move

RE: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

-1 (non-binding) Reason for objection: I think the framing of this vote is confusing. 1. There appears to be less ability to go to TLP than there was at the time the previous motion passed. 2. The discussion (but not the [VOTE]) speaks of going to TLP via the incubator. It has to be

[DISCUSS] RE: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

> -Original Message- > From: Gilles [mailto:gil...@harfang.homelinux.org] > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 15:08 > To: dev@commons.apache.org > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)... > > On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 14:33:58 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote

FW: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Seemed fair to provide this here after all. Note the PPS. > -Original Message- > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 09:12 > To: gene...@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC? > [or

RE: [DISCUSS] Brining clirr to the ASF?

[Chiming in lest those on the Commons PMC who know the answer don't and leave the LGPL question dangling.] > -Original Message- > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 23:23 > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re:

[DISCUSS][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers

>From the Peanut Gallery, All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest to me that the [VOTE]s are premature. I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are at best straw votes and generally serve to establish that there is no consensus because of

RE: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

Brief side-comments from a lurker. It appears that any kind of [VOTE] is premature. There needs to be a better way to find consensus, including more preparatory discussion and determination of an actionable direction. > -Original Message- > From: Gary Gregory

RE: [CRYPTO] Defining the public API; are its interfaces supposed to be implemented or just used?

be implemented or just used? > > On 19 June 2016 at 18:57, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> > wrote: > > Being keen about API architectures ... > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Benedikt Ritter [mailto:brit...@apache.org] >

RE: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Being one of the non-participants that Gilles speaks of, perhaps it is easier for me to not have any baggage that filters what I see as perfectly plain actions. > -Original Message- > From: Gilles [mailto:gil...@harfang.homelinux.org] > Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 10:56 > To:

RE: [CRYPTO] Defining the public API; are its interfaces supposed to be implemented or just used?

Being keen about API architectures ... > -Original Message- > From: Benedikt Ritter [mailto:brit...@apache.org] > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 07:08 > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [CRYPTO] Defining the public API; are its interfaces > supposed to be

RE: [CRYPTO]1.0.0 Release Plan

I don't know if the deployment method for the binaries (.jar, etc.) of these releases provides useful download statistics for the Commons project. If it does, differentiating by the native platforms for which there are native shared-libraries that need to also be on the runtime path (e.g., to

RE: [MATH]: Current state of project?

There are a number of dangling [VOTE] threads that seem to devolve into inconclusive discussion. Nevertheless, it would be useful for the creator of those votes to resolve them with [RESULT][VOTE] messages that account for any actual votes cast and where there were no votes. In ASF parlance,

RE: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Side questions, below > -Original Message- > From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 08:41 > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project? [ ... ] > OK. Newcomers are free to work on

RE: [MATH]: Current state of project?

> > On Aug 3, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > > > > Side questions, below > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, Augus

RE: [CRYPTO] Defining the public API; are its interfaces supposed to be implemented or just used?

;; Dennis Hamilton > <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> > Subject: Re: [CRYPTO] Defining the public API; are its interfaces > supposed to be implemented or just used? > > On 20 June 2016 at 16:48, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> > wrote: [ ... ] > >> > [Inter

RE: [CRYPTO] Defining the public API; are its interfaces supposed to be implemented or just used?

are its interfaces > supposed to be implemented or just used? > > On 28 June 2016 at 16:52, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> > wrote: > > Sebb, although this discussion does not apply to the Commons Crypto > API structure, I want to clean one part up. > > > >

RE: [5/7] [math] Fix "FastMath#round(..)" to comply to changed contract of "Math#round()" in Java 8

>From the peanut gallery, in-line. > -Original Message- > From: Gilles [mailto:gil...@harfang.homelinux.org] > Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 08:50 > To: dev@commons.apache.org > Subject: Re: [5/7] [math] Fix "FastMath#round(..)" to comply to changed > contract of "Math#round()" in Java 8 >

RE: [5/7] [math] Fix "FastMath#round(..)" to comply to changed contract of "Math#round()" in Java 8

> -Original Message- > From: Gilles [mailto:gil...@harfang.homelinux.org] > Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 09:11 > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [5/7] [math] Fix "FastMath#round(..)" to comply to changed > contract of "Math#round()" in Java 8 > > Hi.

[DISCUSS][VOTE][RC2] Release "Apache Commons RNG" version 1.0

> -Original Message- > From: Oliver Heger [mailto:oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de] > Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 06:37 > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE][RC2] Release "Apache Commons RNG" version 1.0 > > > > Am 17.09.2016 um 18:13 schrieb

RE: [RNG] License text location(s) (Was: [jira] RNG-18 [...])

> -Original Message- > From: Gilles [mailto:gil...@harfang.homelinux.org] > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 04:41 > To: dev@commons.apache.org > Subject: Re: [RNG] License text location(s) (Was: [jira] RNG-18 [...]) > > On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:44:27 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > > Le