Hi Gilles, 2012/9/12 Gilles Sadowski <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>: > Hello. > > This thread was left alone for some time, although the main issue was not > settled: I requested the release of a new version of CM. > > I quote my remarks from an earlier message in this thread: > >> [...] issues resulted in some work being done, [...] >> My opinion is that releases must reflect that fact. Or, conversely, only >> "nothing new happened" is a reason for not providing a new release. >> >> Of course, there should be a balance between the work imposed by preparing a >> release, and the updated contents to be released. I think that the trade-off >> is already largely positive. > > and > >> > > "Wish" or "improvement" issues that miss a patch should not be blocking >> > > the >> > > 3.1 release. > > and > >> Of course, I'd be all for setting a date for release 3.2 too! > > Context: > I have to abide by the requirement to use an _official_ release of CM and my > code relies on bug fixes present in the development version. > > Are there any technical reasons to object to the starting of the release > process? > If you did not have this precise requirement, I would have been a bit reluctant to release 3.1 in the middle of MATH-854. Considering your situation, I don't see any real objection on my side. (Sparse vectors *will* be deprecated, as only Phil answered, but this will wait until 3.2...). Sébastien
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
