> -Original Message-
> From: Emmanuel Bourg [mailto:emmanuel.bo...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Emmanuel Bourg
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 10:34
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [RNG] License text location(s) (Was: [jira] RNG-18 [...])
>
> Le 22/09/2016 à 19:09, Gary G
> -Original Message-
> From: Gary Gregory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 10:09
> To: Commons Developers List ; Dennis Hamilton
>
> Subject: Re: [RNG] License text location(s) (Was: [jira] RNG-18 [...])
>
> Our project LICENSE.txt file is just for th
Cleaning up a messy statement ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 09:38
> To: 'Commons Developers List'
> Subject: RE: [RNG] License text locati
> -Original Message-
> From: Jörg Schaible [mailto:joerg.schai...@bpm-inspire.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 08:50
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [RNG] New implementations before release of 1.0
>
> Hi Gilles,
>
> Gilles wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:29:37
> -Original Message-
> From: Gilles [mailto:gil...@harfang.homelinux.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 04:41
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [RNG] License text location(s) (Was: [jira] RNG-18 [...])
>
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:44:27 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > Le
> -Original Message-
> From: Oliver Heger [mailto:oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de]
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 06:37
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE][RC2] Release "Apache Commons RNG" version 1.0
>
>
>
> Am 17.09.2016 um 18:13 schrieb Gary Gregory:
> > Hi All,
>
>From the peanut gallery, in-line.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gilles [mailto:gil...@harfang.homelinux.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 08:50
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [5/7] [math] Fix "FastMath#round(..)" to comply to changed
> contract of "Math#round()" in Java 8
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gilles [mailto:gil...@harfang.homelinux.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 09:11
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [5/7] [math] Fix "FastMath#round(..)" to comply to changed
> contract of "Math#round()" in Java 8
>
> Hi.
>
> Changes in this file
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 11:30
> To: Commons Developers List ;
> dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 2016,
Side questions, below
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 08:41
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
[ ... ]
> OK. Newcomers are free to work on whatever they want, whether
There are a number of dangling [VOTE] threads that seem to devolve into
inconclusive discussion. Nevertheless, it would be useful for the creator of
those votes to resolve them with [RESULT][VOTE] messages that account for any
actual votes cast and where there were no votes.
In ASF parlance, t
I don't know if the deployment method for the binaries (.jar, etc.) of these
releases provides useful download statistics for the Commons project.
If it does, differentiating by the native platforms for which there are native
shared-libraries that need to also be on the runtime path (e.g., to wo
t; On 28 June 2016 at 16:52, Dennis E. Hamilton
> wrote:
> > Sebb, although this discussion does not apply to the Commons Crypto
> API structure, I want to clean one part up.
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
> >
bject: Re: [CRYPTO] Defining the public API; are its interfaces
> supposed to be implemented or just used?
>
> On 20 June 2016 at 16:48, Dennis E. Hamilton
> wrote:
[ ... ]
> >> > [Interface use] also does not compel all implementations being off the
> >> > same
&
>From the Peanut Gallery,
All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest to me that
the [VOTE]s are premature.
I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are at best
straw votes and generally serve to establish that there is no consensus because
of a
t;
> On 19 June 2016 at 18:57, Dennis E. Hamilton
> wrote:
> > Being keen about API architectures ...
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Benedikt Ritter [mailto:brit...@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 07:08
> >> To: Co
Being keen about API architectures ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Benedikt Ritter [mailto:brit...@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 07:08
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [CRYPTO] Defining the public API; are its interfaces
> supposed to be implemented or just used?
Being one of the non-participants that Gilles speaks of, perhaps it is easier
for me to not have any baggage that filters what I see as perfectly plain
actions.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gilles [mailto:gil...@harfang.homelinux.org]
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 10:56
> To: dev@commo
Brief side-comments from a lurker.
It appears that any kind of [VOTE] is premature. There needs to be a better
way to find consensus, including more preparatory discussion and determination
of an actionable direction.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gary Gregory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail
[Chiming in lest those on the Commons PMC who know the answer don't and leave
the LGPL question dangling.]
> -Original Message-
> From: Gary Gregory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 23:23
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Brining clirr to
> -Original Message-
> From: Gilles [mailto:gil...@harfang.homelinux.org]
> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 15:08
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...
>
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 14:33:58 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote
-1 (non-binding)
Reason for objection:
I think the framing of this vote is confusing.
1. There appears to be less ability to go to TLP than there was at the time
the previous motion passed.
2. The discussion (but not the [VOTE]) speaks of going to TLP via the
incubator. It has to be one
I would like to understand what happened when the such a [VOTE] passed
previously.
Was no resolution developed and taken to the board?
Was there a roadmap for how movement/forking of Commons Math would be
undertaken and what the legacy at Commons Math might be?
What is there that has the situa
Exactly what does dormant status entail?
What actions are taken to make something dormant?
- Dennis
> -Original Message-
> From: Benedikt Ritter [mailto:brit...@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 08:18
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons Primitive
Seemed fair to provide this here after all. Note the PPS.
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 09:12
> To: gene...@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
>
[or
+1 and by all means acknowledge the library - it might inspire further useful
ports.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Sébastien Brisard [mailto:sebastien.bris...@m4x.org]
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 00:28
To: legal-disc...@apache.org
Cc: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [all]
26 matches
Mail list logo