Hi.
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 19:28:37 +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
What I would love to see it a release of commons-math 3
Is it usual to release an unsupported codebase?
If yes, is there someone willing to work on this?
with an
Automatic-Module-Name for Java 9 modules (potentially the only
change).
A v3.6.1.1 thus?
You could use the release as a way of advertising the
progress towards v4.
Fine to write a paragraph in the release notes; but I'm not so
sure that it would change anything to the current situation.
What incentive will people still using v3.6.1 (or lower) have
for using v4.0-beta (or contribute to get to v4.0)?
Gilles
Stephen
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 19:16, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 07:35:12 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
> But SNAPSHOT builds _are_ publicly available on
> repository.apache.org. Sure
> they come and go and you cannot rely on their permanence.
And, perhaps, developers do not check what's available there...
Reports keep coming showing that they don't know about the status
of "Commons Math".
Thus the idea that a beta release might draw to the rejuvenation
attempt. A "beta" because it is still a lot of work to fix all
the identified issues and we need extra help; a "release" because
a lot of work has been done since the last release, providing many
bug fixes and other improvements.
A release of the development version of CM requires the release
of its dependencies: "Commons Numbers" and "Commons Statistics".[1]
Both would be "beta" too.
Regards,
Gilles
[1] And also "Commons Geometry" if the code is in a state that's
able to replace the "o.a.c.math4.geometry" package.
> Gary
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 04:50 sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> SNAPSHOT builds must only be published to Commons developers.
>> They cannot be published on public download pages.
>>
>> Also they may disappear or be replaced at any time.
>>
>> Beta builds are subject to a release VOTE, and so can be
published
>> in
>> the usual way.
>> Once published, they are permanently available.
>>
>> On 30 August 2018 at 09:38, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > What's the difference to a nightly build being published to the
>> Apache
>> > Snapshot repo?
>> >
>> > Benedikt
>> >
>> > Am Mi., 29. Aug. 2018 um 21:51 Uhr schrieb Gary Gregory <
>> > garydgreg...@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >> We do not have hard rules for betas AFAIK. IMO, only a beta
can
>> depend
>> on
>> >> another beta, for example see HttpComponents. We should not
>> release a
>> >> non-beta that depends on a beta. I think breaking BC is to be
>> expected
>> in
>> >> an alpha and less so in a beta. Changing package names and
>> coordinates
>> from
>> >> one beta to the next seems a bit excessive but I would not
object
>> to it.
>> >>
>> >> Gary
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 10:36 Gilles
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hello.
>> >> >
>> >> > Do you have an idea of what it would take to automate "beta"
>> >> > releases?
>> >> > By this I mean: take a component (at some state) and create
>> >> > a branch (with all the necessary adaptations) to become an
>> >> > official release.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are "beta" releases subject to the same BC requirements as
>> >> > "ordinary" ones? Concretely, suppose that several releases
>> >> > will be necessary: Do they have to change top-level package
>> >> > name?
>> >> >
>> >> > Can a (non-"beta") release (of some component) depend on a
>> >> > "beta" release (of another component)? Or has the former to
>> >> > be a "beta" too?
>> >> >
>> >> > Rationale: I imagine that uploading to "Maven Central" may
>> >> > help correcting the misrepresentation of resources available
>> >> > from this project.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > Gilles
>> >> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
