On 26 May 2006 at 17:32, "Mikhail Loenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P.S. Thanks to Mark!
I was feeling guilty for being pedantic!
I agree we should switch these... especially in light of the Eclipse
compile problem with the current default.
-Mark.
> 2006/5/26, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECT
P.S. Thanks to Mark!
2006/5/26, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
ant -Dhy.rmi.module=rmi3 -f make/build.xml
works now, the next step is make
ant -Dhy.rmi.module=rmi -f make/build.xml
work as agreed.
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/5/25, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> Mark Hindess wro
ant -Dhy.rmi.module=rmi3 -f make/build.xml
works now, the next step is make
ant -Dhy.rmi.module=rmi -f make/build.xml
work as agreed.
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/5/25, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Mark Hindess wrote:
> On 24 May 2006 at 12:50, "Mikhail Loenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark Hindess wrote:
On 24 May 2006 at 12:50, "Mikhail Loenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As a first step I suggest taking it as a base - move rmi to rmi4 or
whatever and move rmi3 to rmi.
This is fine with me but, being slightly pedantic, I think that's the
second step. The first step is
On 24 May 2006 at 12:50, "Mikhail Loenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2006/5/24, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On 5/24/06, Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > >
> > > 2006/5/24, Geir Magnusson Jr :
> > > > I'd like to propose that we choose what we judge to be the best
> > > > RMI implementation,
2006/5/24, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 5/24/06, Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>
> 2006/5/24, Geir Magnusson Jr :
> > I'd like to propose that we choose what we judge to be the best RMI
> > implementation, and the best math implementation now so we can move
> > forward, with the understanding t
On 5/24/06, Mikhail Loenko wrote:
2006/5/24, Geir Magnusson Jr :
> I'd like to propose that we choose what we judge to be the best RMI
> implementation, and the best math implementation now so we can move
> forward, with the understanding that anyone interested can continue to
> work to merge th
I think that contribution authors and everyone who is interested in the areas
will control that their best ideas go to the merged version.
It seems that we do not need a special document about that
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/5/24, Vladimir Gorr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Who will control the accuracy of t
Who will control the accuracy of this process (I mean merging)?
Obviously we need to have the document substantiating that or other choice.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Vladimir.
On 5/24/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2006/5/24, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'd like to
2006/5/24, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'd like to propose that we choose what we judge to be the best RMI
implementation, and the best math implementation now so we can move
forward, with the understanding that anyone interested can continue to
work to merge the additional contributio
I'd like to propose that we choose what we judge to be the best RMI
implementation, and the best math implementation now so we can move
forward, with the understanding that anyone interested can continue to
work to merge the additional contributions into whatever was chosen.
We then get out of
11 matches
Mail list logo
