Re: [geometry] 1.0 release (take 2)
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 22:12, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > Le mar. 10 août 2021 à 21:25, Matt Juntunen > a écrit : > > > > FYI, I'm planning to start the geometry release process within the > > next couple of days instead of waiting for the RNG release as > > mentioned previously. (Geometry only uses RNG for unit tests and > > benchmarks.) The reasons for this change of plans is that (1) I have > > need of the code in other projects and (2) I have time now to do the > > release but will most likely not later on. Please let me know if you > > have any objections. > > No problem. > [There is also no worry then to release RNG v1.4 and we can think > about RNG-127.] > I am finishing the performance work on the new ziggurat sampler. Then I was going to look at a RNG release. This would not be for 2 weeks as I am away next week and so cannot go through the full 3 day vote release before then. So go ahead with a geometry release since it does not require anything from RNG. I do not think RNG-127 will affect anything we currently have in v1.4. I think pushing out v1.4 now under Java 7 and then upgrading to Java 8 for changes that RNG-127 may bring. The use of Java 8 would allow work on a streaming API and also methods to be added as default methods to existing interfaces. It would give more time to digest exactly what to add for RNG-127 while putting out the changes that have built up for v1.4. Alex
Re: [geometry] 1.0 release (take 2)
Le mar. 10 août 2021 à 21:25, Matt Juntunen a écrit : > > FYI, I'm planning to start the geometry release process within the > next couple of days instead of waiting for the RNG release as > mentioned previously. (Geometry only uses RNG for unit tests and > benchmarks.) The reasons for this change of plans is that (1) I have > need of the code in other projects and (2) I have time now to do the > release but will most likely not later on. Please let me know if you > have any objections. No problem. [There is also no worry then to release RNG v1.4 and we can think about RNG-127.] Thanks, Gilles >> [...] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [geometry] 1.0 release (take 2)
FYI, I'm planning to start the geometry release process within the next couple of days instead of waiting for the RNG release as mentioned previously. (Geometry only uses RNG for unit tests and benchmarks.) The reasons for this change of plans is that (1) I have need of the code in other projects and (2) I have time now to do the release but will most likely not later on. Please let me know if you have any objections. Regards, Matt J On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 7:25 AM Alex Herbert wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 at 02:32, Matt Juntunen > wrote: > > > > > > Then, as a matter of preference, I'd still suggest that "Commons RNG" > > > be released first (if the latter's next release is pending). > > > > Ok. Any thoughts on a timeline for that? > > > > I am currently looking at it. > > The dryRun build of the release profile now works under JDK 11.0.11. This > is good. Previously JDK 11 complained about the JPMS modules using code > from packages in the unnamed module and this errored the build. It had to > be released using JDK 9. Now the latest JDK has a more lenient javadoc tool > and the warnings are printed but it does not fail the build. > > I am going to try updating the modules to use Java 11 in-place of Java 9 > and see if that works. It would be preferable to release the example JPMS > modules built using the first LTS version to support modules (i.e. JDK 11 > not not JDK 9). > > Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [geometry] 1.0 release (take 2)
On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 at 02:32, Matt Juntunen wrote: > > > Then, as a matter of preference, I'd still suggest that "Commons RNG" > > be released first (if the latter's next release is pending). > > Ok. Any thoughts on a timeline for that? > I am currently looking at it. The dryRun build of the release profile now works under JDK 11.0.11. This is good. Previously JDK 11 complained about the JPMS modules using code from packages in the unnamed module and this errored the build. It had to be released using JDK 9. Now the latest JDK has a more lenient javadoc tool and the warnings are printed but it does not fail the build. I am going to try updating the modules to use Java 11 in-place of Java 9 and see if that works. It would be preferable to release the example JPMS modules built using the first LTS version to support modules (i.e. JDK 11 not not JDK 9). Alex
Re: [geometry] 1.0 release (take 2)
> We should wait for some positive feedback from the code being > exercised by that new tool. [I've no idea of how long is long enough.] If I'm reading this link [1] correctly, it sounds like a few days should be sufficient. (The fuzzers were merged in today.) > Then, as a matter of preference, I'd still suggest that "Commons RNG" > be released first (if the latter's next release is pending). Ok. Any thoughts on a timeline for that? Regards, Matt J [1] https://google.github.io/oss-fuzz/faq/#what-if-my-fuzzer-does-not-find-anything On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 12:36 PM Alex Herbert wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 at 16:25, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > Le dim. 1 août 2021 à 02:57, Matt Juntunen a > > écrit : > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I've addressed a few issues since I last proposed the commons-geometry > > > 1.0 release, namely > > > - reducing the code smells in SonarCloud from 100+ to 8 (mostly by > > > clearing false positives) and > > > - removing use of checked exceptions in the IO modules (GEOMETRY-138). > > > > Thanks! :-) > > > > > I've also run fuzz testing locally on the IO modules and am pursuing > > > integrating the project into OSS-Fuzz. So, how are we feeling about a > > > 1.0 release? > > > > We should wait for some positive feedback from the code being > > exercised by that new tool. [I've no idea of how long is long enough.] > > > > Then, as a matter of preference, I'd still suggest that "Commons RNG" > > be released first (if the latter's next release is pending). > > > > I think that RNG can be released as there is nothing pending to add. I've > updated the user guide with the latest performance tests and new API > additions. I have not yet checked the new API to make sure all is OK with > the new method signatures and class names. > > Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [geometry] 1.0 release (take 2)
On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 at 16:25, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > Hi. > > Le dim. 1 août 2021 à 02:57, Matt Juntunen a > écrit : > > > > Hello, > > > > I've addressed a few issues since I last proposed the commons-geometry > > 1.0 release, namely > > - reducing the code smells in SonarCloud from 100+ to 8 (mostly by > > clearing false positives) and > > - removing use of checked exceptions in the IO modules (GEOMETRY-138). > > Thanks! :-) > > > I've also run fuzz testing locally on the IO modules and am pursuing > > integrating the project into OSS-Fuzz. So, how are we feeling about a > > 1.0 release? > > We should wait for some positive feedback from the code being > exercised by that new tool. [I've no idea of how long is long enough.] > > Then, as a matter of preference, I'd still suggest that "Commons RNG" > be released first (if the latter's next release is pending). > I think that RNG can be released as there is nothing pending to add. I've updated the user guide with the latest performance tests and new API additions. I have not yet checked the new API to make sure all is OK with the new method signatures and class names. Alex
Re: [geometry] 1.0 release (take 2)
Hi. Le dim. 1 août 2021 à 02:57, Matt Juntunen a écrit : > > Hello, > > I've addressed a few issues since I last proposed the commons-geometry > 1.0 release, namely > - reducing the code smells in SonarCloud from 100+ to 8 (mostly by > clearing false positives) and > - removing use of checked exceptions in the IO modules (GEOMETRY-138). Thanks! :-) > I've also run fuzz testing locally on the IO modules and am pursuing > integrating the project into OSS-Fuzz. So, how are we feeling about a > 1.0 release? We should wait for some positive feedback from the code being exercised by that new tool. [I've no idea of how long is long enough.] Then, as a matter of preference, I'd still suggest that "Commons RNG" be released first (if the latter's next release is pending). Best, Gilles > As before, the following modules would be included: > - commons-geometry-core > - commons-geometry-euclidean > - commons-geometry-spherical > - commons-geometry-io-core > - commons-geometry-io-euclidean > > Regards, > Matt J - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
[geometry] 1.0 release (take 2)
Hello, I've addressed a few issues since I last proposed the commons-geometry 1.0 release, namely - reducing the code smells in SonarCloud from 100+ to 8 (mostly by clearing false positives) and - removing use of checked exceptions in the IO modules (GEOMETRY-138). I've also run fuzz testing locally on the IO modules and am pursuing integrating the project into OSS-Fuzz. So, how are we feeling about a 1.0 release? As before, the following modules would be included: - commons-geometry-core - commons-geometry-euclidean - commons-geometry-spherical - commons-geometry-io-core - commons-geometry-io-euclidean Regards, Matt J - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
