[...]
With
gpg.passphrasePass phrase in clear text/gpg.passphrase
it works; whereas with
gpg.passphrase{dwQBDCzUlr8Hb4JOieNAAhzWzTT0Gnmy5yOayp6W4CpbnGsVQrii/bcwDRjwYx9U}/gpg.passphrase
it doesn't.
Just re-checked, and it seems that Maven only supports password
encryption for
On 29 February 2012 18:35, Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
[...]
With
gpg.passphrasePass phrase in clear text/gpg.passphrase
it works; whereas with
gpg.passphrase{dwQBDCzUlr8Hb4JOieNAAhzWzTT0Gnmy5yOayp6W4CpbnGsVQrii/bcwDRjwYx9U}/gpg.passphrase
it doesn't.
[...]
I think that this, indeed, did not test the use of the encrypted password
for login.
To test the login encryption, I suggest you try deploying a snapshot
release instead (e.g. install from trunk, which should remain a
snapshot).
This command
$ mvn clean deploy -Prelease
On 28 February 2012 10:36, Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
[...]
I think that this, indeed, did not test the use of the encrypted password
for login.
To test the login encryption, I suggest you try deploying a snapshot
release instead (e.g. install from trunk, which
[...]
I think that this, indeed, did not test the use of the encrypted password
for login.
To test the login encryption, I suggest you try deploying a snapshot
release instead (e.g. install from trunk, which should remain a
snapshot).
This command
$ mvn clean deploy
On 29 February 2012 00:09, Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
[...]
I think that this, indeed, did not test the use of the encrypted
password
for login.
To test the login encryption, I suggest you try deploying a snapshot
release instead (e.g. install from
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:25:49PM +, sebb wrote:
On 25 February 2012 09:59, Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org
wrote:
Hello.
How do we proceed from here in order to release 3.0? Cf. ticket MATH-746,
Things to do before releasing 3.0.
Sorry for being late on this.
On 27 February 2012 12:27, Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:25:49PM +, sebb wrote:
On 25 February 2012 09:59, Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org
wrote:
Hello.
How do we proceed from here in order to release 3.0? Cf. ticket
I couldn't tell you now because installing maven3 implied desinstalling
maven2.
I've got both installed (Win XP) with no issues; I just change the
PATH as needed to switch between them.
It's Debian GNU/Linux here.
[...]
[INFO]
On 27 February 2012 21:22, Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
I couldn't tell you now because installing maven3 implied desinstalling
maven2.
I've got both installed (Win XP) with no issues; I just change the
PATH as needed to switch between them.
It's Debian GNU/Linux
On 25 February 2012 09:59, Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
Hello.
How do we proceed from here in order to release 3.0? Cf. ticket MATH-746,
Things to do before releasing 3.0.
Sorry for being late on this.
Can we start to talk about an expected release date?
I
Le 20/02/2012 23:26, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
Hi.
Hi Gilles,
How do we proceed from here in order to release 3.0? Cf. ticket MATH-746,
Things to do before releasing 3.0.
Sorry for being late on this.
Can we start to talk about an expected release date?
I guess you did a wonderful job
Hi.
How do we proceed from here in order to release 3.0? Cf. ticket MATH-746,
Things to do before releasing 3.0.
Can we start to talk about an expected release date?
Thanks,
Gilles
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On 02/17/2012 09:04 PM, Mikkel Meyer Andersen wrote:
I am still active in theory, but in practise I unfortunately haven't
contributed much lately due to high workload on my PhD. I am of course
sorry for this and hope to be able to highen my activity.
Regarding MATH-431, we need to discuss
Dear all,
I think 3.0 is very close at hand. Just a quick note to let you know
that unfortunately, I'll be away for a week, and won't be able to help
with the final brush up (if release occurs before next weekend).
Best wishes,
Sébastien
Hi @all,
just some status/feedback on some still open issues:
- MATH-449: I have implemented (almost) all suggestions from
Phil, and the code is documented and tested, so imho the issue
can be resolved unless somebody has still reservations
- MATH-431: the two tests were contributed by
2012/2/17 Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com:
Hi @all,
just some status/feedback on some still open issues:
- MATH-449: I have implemented (almost) all suggestions from
Phil, and the code is documented and tested, so imho the issue
can be resolved unless somebody has still
Hello.
just some status/feedback on some still open issues:
- MATH-449: I have implemented (almost) all suggestions from
Phil, and the code is documented and tested, so imho the issue
can be resolved unless somebody has still reservations
You probably know best.
- MATH-431: the
Le 15/02/2012 07:32, Sébastien Brisard a écrit :
Dear all,
do we need to clear all Findbugs/PMD warning prior to releasing?
Yes, and checkstyle too.
In some cases, there are false positive which must be handled by adding
the appropriate filter using specific filtering comments in the code for
Hi.
do we need to clear all Findbugs/PMD warning prior to releasing?
Yes, and checkstyle too.
We'll have to make an exception for BOBYQAOptimizer: I don't want to
eliminate all those potential clues pointing at the needed improvements
towards a clean Java implementation.
If the CheckStyle
AM
To: dev@commons.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Math] Toward releasing 3.0 ?
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 01:12:50PM +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 02/14/2012 12:50 PM, Patrick Meyer wrote:
I can document the StorelessCovariance addition. What is the best
way to add documentation? Do I just add
On 02/15/2012 02:41 PM, Patrick Meyer wrote:
OK, I submited a patch that includes comments and documentation. Let me know
if I need to write more, but I think I've covered the functionality of the
classes.
Hi Patrick,
thanks for the patch. I have applied it together with additional code
Looks great, thanks!
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Neidhart [mailto:thomas.neidh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:28 PM
To: dev@commons.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Math] Toward releasing 3.0 ?
On 02/15/2012 02:41 PM, Patrick Meyer wrote:
OK, I submited a patch
@commons.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Math] Toward releasing 3.0 ?
Hi,
I have seen that there are several classes that are almost undocumented:
- PivotingQRDecomposition (linear)
- StorelessCovariance (stat.correlation)
- StorelessBivariateCovariance (stat.correlation)
both seem to be quite new contributions
On 02/14/2012 12:50 PM, Patrick Meyer wrote:
I can document the StorelessCovariance addition. What is the best way to add
documentation? Do I just add comments to the file and create a patch?
Yes this would be fine. I have seen that there is an open issue
regarding this contribution, please
Dear all,
do we need to clear all Findbugs/PMD warning prior to releasing?
Sébastien
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Hi,
I have seen that there are several classes that are almost undocumented:
- PivotingQRDecomposition (linear)
- StorelessCovariance (stat.correlation)
- StorelessBivariateCovariance (stat.correlation)
both seem to be quite new contributions, is somebody willing to help here?
Thomas
Hi Gilles,
Le 13/02/2012 12:01, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
Hello.
It thus becomes urgent to tackle the remaining blocking issues.
Can we please make a list of those, and of all practical matters that
prevent the preparation of the release?
MATH-621 (see also MATH-728)
* Unit test
Hello.
MATH-698
IIUC, CMAESOptimizer deals only with either no bounds or finite
bounds.
(e.g. look at method encode, lines 904-914).
I don't have the knowledge about the algorithm in order to know how to
modify that code so that it will behave correctly when only one of the
Le 27/01/2012 20:44, Sébastien Brisard a écrit :
Hi Luc,
thanks for this answer.
My problem is that I do not know what getSolverAbsoluteAccuracy()
should return. I see three options
1. Have getSolverAbsoluteAccuracy() throw an
UnsupportedOperationException, as the solver is *never* invoked.
Hi.
It thus becomes urgent to tackle the remaining blocking issues.
Can we please make a list of those, and of all practical matters that
prevent the preparation of the release?
MATH-621 (see also MATH-728)
* Unit test coverage: at least 6 branches of the code are not explored.
Hi
It thus becomes urgent to tackle the remaining blocking issues.
Can we please make a list of those, and of all practical matters that
prevent the preparation of the release?
MATH-731 is pretty much solved, but I still need a piece of advice.
Let me explain : the triangular distribution is
Le 27/01/2012 12:48, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
Hi.
Hi Gilles,
It thus becomes urgent to tackle the remaining blocking issues.
Can we please make a list of those, and of all practical matters that
prevent the preparation of the release?
MATH-621 (see also MATH-728)
* Unit test
Le 27/01/2012 13:55, Sébastien Brisard a écrit :
Hi
It thus becomes urgent to tackle the remaining blocking issues.
Can we please make a list of those, and of all practical matters that
prevent the preparation of the release?
MATH-731 is pretty much solved, but I still need a piece of
Hi Luc,
thanks for this answer.
My problem is that I do not know what getSolverAbsoluteAccuracy()
should return. I see three options
1. Have getSolverAbsoluteAccuracy() throw an
UnsupportedOperationException, as the solver is *never* invoked.
2. Return a default value, and specify in the
Hi.
It thus becomes urgent to tackle the remaining blocking issues.
Can we please make a list of those, and of all practical matters that
prevent the preparation of the release?
MATH-621 (see also MATH-728)
* Unit test coverage: at least 6 branches of the code are not explored.
* Code
Hello.
It thus becomes urgent to tackle the remaining blocking issues.
Can we please make a list of those, and of all practical matters that
prevent the preparation of the release?
Thanks and best regards,
Gilles
As far as I'm concerned, I have been concentrating recently on
2012/1/26 Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org:
Hello.
It thus becomes urgent to tackle the remaining blocking issues.
Can we please make a list of those, and of all practical matters that
prevent the preparation of the release?
Thanks and best regards,
Gilles
As far as
Hello,
Hi.
It thus becomes urgent to tackle the remaining blocking issues.
Can we please make a list of those, and of all practical matters that
prevent the preparation of the release?
MATH-621 (see also MATH-728)
* Unit test coverage: at least 6 branches of the code are not explored.
On 26 January 2012 14:39, Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
Hello.
It thus becomes urgent to tackle the remaining blocking issues.
Can we please make a list of those, and of all practical matters that
prevent the preparation of the release?
Thanks and best regards,
Le 26/01/2012 15:39, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
Hello.
It thus becomes urgent to tackle the remaining blocking issues.
Can we please make a list of those, and of all practical matters that
prevent the preparation of the release?
Thanks and best regards,
Gilles
As far as I'm concerned, I
Le 26/01/2012 15:52, Sébastien Brisard a écrit :
Hello,
Hi.
It thus becomes urgent to tackle the remaining blocking issues.
Can we please make a list of those, and of all practical matters that
prevent the preparation of the release?
MATH-621 (see also MATH-728)
* Unit test coverage:
Hello.
Among the good resolutions for this new year 2012, there had been rumours
about releasing Commons Math 3.0 around mid-January.
I've been reviewing the list of open issues and postponed several issues to
3.1 (mostly because there were no patch).
Pending design issues (matrix interface,
On 01/25/2012 01:13 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
It thus becomes urgent to tackle the remaining blocking issues.
Can we please make a list of those, and of all practical matters that
prevent the preparation of the release?
Hi,
a release quite soon would also be appreciated from my side.
As
44 matches
Mail list logo
