Ooops, the message was sent while I was in the middle of rewriting
a paragraph. Here it is again.
Le 2014-10-21 10:08, luc a écrit :
Hi Hank,
Le 2014-10-21 04:26, Hank Grabowski a écrit :
All,
I have restored the original files but added deprecation and accuracy
warnings. The new interpolators are now in their own "Piecewise"
surnamed
classes. All tests in the entire JUnit suite passed.
You can find the details of the pull request here:
https://github.com/apache/commons-math/pull/3
You can browse my version of the repository, or pull your own copy
down,
here:
https://github.com/HankG/commons-math
I have committed the changes. I'm not sure if GitHub will close the
pull request
automatically, so you may need to close it.
This pull request seems to also have all of the changes from
apache:master
that I fetched and merged with my local repository before I started
these
edits. I'm not sure how to get GitHub to ignore those came from the
root,
nor have I figured out how to select a limited range of changes to get
around that. I also don't want to let my fork go stale. Between the
two I
figured it was better to keep my fork up to date before making changes
than
it was for the person processing a pull request to try to shoe horn it
into
whatever the change is.
Thats OK. I have cloned your repository and cherry-picked the three
commits on top
of the current master branch.
As "git merge" preserves all branches history, I think any commit you
will attempts on your master branch will include all the paths in the
history tree
back to bd3a6ec where the history split. Perhaps you should do a "git
rebase" to
avoid including the commits from bd3a6ec to d346131 to be included as
part of the history
of next commits.
I also thing Emmanuel wrote that git pull requests are always
branch-based rather than
commit-based, so createing a dedicated local branch for a request may be
a way to
simplify this.
Anyway, we can always do cherry-picking of individual commits. It is
straightforward
with Eclipse.
Along with these changes I did do a scan of my code to make sure I
didn't
miss any defensive programming practices, used magic numbers, et
cetera.
Nothing stood out to me, but proofreading your own writing is never a
good
thing. If whatever "minor changes" I need to make to get this code
"on par
with what we had usually committed as new contributions" can be
pointed out
here or in JIRA I'd appreciate it.
I let Gilles check this and warn us if something wrong appears in these
changes.
best regards,
Luc
I'm adding this same note to the JIRA incident.
Hank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
