Re: [Math] Java 8?

On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 20:15:33 -0600, Matt Sicker wrote: On 30 January 2018 at 20:08, Gilles wrote: On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 20:00:13 -0600, Matt Sicker wrote: Which Commons Math? I'm not sure I understand the question; are there more than one "Commons Math"?

Re: [Math] Java 8?

On Jan 30, 2018 18:47, "Gilles" wrote: Hi. Any objection to requiring Java 8 for building "Commons Math"? Go for it. Gary Regards, Gilles - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [Math] Java 8?

On 30 January 2018 at 20:08, Gilles wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 20:00:13 -0600, Matt Sicker wrote: > >> Which Commons Math? >> > > I'm not sure I understand the question; are there more > than one "Commons Math"? > Perhaps you mean "which branch?"; then "master"

Re: [Math] Java 8?

On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 20:00:13 -0600, Matt Sicker wrote: Which Commons Math? I'm not sure I understand the question; are there more than one "Commons Math"? Perhaps you mean "which branch?"; then "master" and (all new feature branches) would be the answer. None from me, though. Thanks,

Re: [Math] Java 8?

Which Commons Math? None from me, though. On 30 January 2018 at 19:46, Gilles wrote: > Hi. > > Any objection to requiring Java 8 for building "Commons Math"? > > Regards, > Gilles > > > - > To

[Math] Java 8?

Hi. Any objection to requiring Java 8 for building "Commons Math"? Regards, Gilles - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

[GitHub] commons-rdf issue #48: Cleanup in commons-rdf-rdf4j to close PMD and FindBug...

Github user ajs6f commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/commons-rdf/pull/48 @wikier I've got a triple of PRs here to clean up warnings, as we heard about last release. Is there a problem with merging them? Is there something I should do to help them merge-able? Thanks!

Re: [Signing] New component for code signing

On Tue, 2018-01-30 at 15:57 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > Well, there are plans by me. I would not invest time in a project > nobody else can use… > > Maybe there can be some consensus on a common protocol. Ah, sorry - I thought you meant the plans for this particular submission. There can be

RE: [Signing] New component for code signing

Well, there are plans by me. I would not invest time in a project nobody else can use… Maybe there can be some consensus on a common protocol. Gruss Bernd Von: Robert Munteanu Gesendet: Dienstag, 30. Januar 2018 11:21 An: Commons Developers List Betreff: Re: [Signing] New component for code

Re: [statistics] Storeless statistics - two points about Mean()

Hi. On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:02:03 +0100, Eric Barnhill wrote: Overall I think the old math-statistics functioned well and I would not be inclined to mess with the old object hierarchy without reason. There are good reasons: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-1228

Re: [Signing] New component for code signing

Hi Bernd, On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 22:26 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > +1 - and I would expect we also see a Server-side component. > > BTW: Eclipse also has some infrastructure for this (we use a modified > Version with a PHP backend on-prem) > >

[statistics] Storeless statistics - two points about Mean()

Overall I think the old math-statistics functioned well and I would not be inclined to mess with the old object hierarchy without reason. But there are some strange design choices in this code. Mean() is used here as an example. 1) In Mean() the two constructors create a FirstMoment() object: