Re: Cleanup Math

I would agree mildly with 80% of the result, grump about 10% and tear hair about 10%. I don't know which 10% at the moment. But it wouldn't hurt for one or more of us to go through and mark up a list of things we can see a use for. On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > What would

Re: Cleanup Math

This is terrible! I went to sleep on this side of the world and people on the other side have already bartered votes for beer. For being the reason of the getting a vote call going by mistake, I object this reflexive behavior and instead propose for a transitive one. If we are not going to touch

Hudson build is still unstable: Mahout-Quality #36

See

Re: Cleanup Math

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > That sounds fine to me. > > But I sense there's no particular motivation to ever address this stuff - > hearing objections to even style changes. > > What is the game plan you envision then? When is it OK to touch any of > this? > "OK"? It's a

Re: Cleanup Math

That sounds fine to me. But I sense there's no particular motivation to ever address this stuff - hearing objections to even style changes. What is the game plan you envision then? When is it OK to touch any of this? Honestly the code quality in this project is not yet professional. Its much bet

Re: Cleanup Math

I'd say this: I'll go for it if you can go through all of JIRA and assure me there are little to no issues open against it that need to be fixed. It's not even necessarily the active ones. Either that or promise to update/fix them once the reformat is done. I still, however, think it is poin

Re: Cleanup Math

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > > Better still in math would be to chuck out the pieces we haven't found a > use > for and don't suppose there will be a use for soon. Then care about the > rest. What would happen if I suggest we delete anything still deprecated? > -1 on that

Re: Cleanup Math

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Hey, I objected too! > See! I knew the micro-vote market would never sustain epsilon-valued prices for long! But the SEC can pry that beer from my cold dead hands, I say! -jake

Re: Cleanup Math

Hey, I objected too! On May 29, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > Jake, > > How about I buy you a beer to convert you to a +0? > > (yes, this is a bribe) > > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Jake Mannix wrote: > >> But as I said, I really don't feel like giving this a "-1" >> followed

Re: Cleanup Math

I agree which is why I am not excited by the task of scrubbing the details but dont mind if someone else does at all. I already had my way with core and examples which are more interesting. They're now pretty in line with checkstyle rules. Better still in math would be to chuck out the pieces we h

Re: Cleanup Math

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > It isn't just lack of test cases leading to deprecations. I had a use just > now for some of the code and in the process of adding test cases to get rid > of the deprecations found it wasn't quite right. If dipping into 4 > routines > uncov

Re: Cleanup Math

I found, as you will recall, a certain number of surprises in the collections subset. You might say that we collectively took out a loan at the credibility bank by incorporating this stuff, deprecations or no, and might be well-advised to try to find time to write tests and repair problems (or rem

Re: Cleanup Math

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Jake Mannix wrote: > The math (Colt) stuff is a special case, and in fact, is one which will > lull > us > into a sense of security by having warnings go away, because it's still way > low on test coverage. But, we did go an run my nice "auto-deprecator" > ruby s

Re: Cleanup Math

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > I am sympathetic to Jake's point of view in general, but I think that the > math stuff is a bit of a special case. > The math (Colt) stuff is a special case, and in fact, is one which will lull us into a sense of security by having warnings g

Re: Cleanup Math

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > Jake, > > How about I buy you a beer to convert you to a +0? > > (yes, this is a bribe) > An entire beer for but a two-epsilon change in my vote? That's a pretty high BeerPerVote ratio, I better grab that before the market sees how inflated

Re: Cleanup Math

Jake, How about I buy you a beer to convert you to a +0? (yes, this is a bribe) On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Jake Mannix wrote: > But as I said, I really don't feel like giving this a "-1" > followed by a big backing-up-of-all-of-my-points as to > "why", so I'll stick with the tried-and-t

Re: Cleanup Math

I am sympathetic to Jake's point of view in general, but I think that the math stuff is a bit of a special case. I have had two patches recently that could have been affected. One was adding test cases and correcting some of the distribution code (a kind angel committed that already). Another is

Re: Cleanup Math

We've been through it before: making massive formatting changes can: a) break patches. Biggest reason, not the case here. But the point is that it sets (grr, continues) a precedent: what if someone was on vacation and not reading emails, and we all said, "I'm not touching that module, go ahead

Re: Cleanup Math

Nobody asked you to spend any time on anything though. Does it mess up a patch? Say so and nothing would happen until ready. So not sure what other issue is lurking here but lets discuss if needed rather than feel funny about it. This should be easy and fun. On May 29, 2010 2:35 PM, "Jake Mannix"

Re: Cleanup Math

Ok, I'm done wasting time on this issue. People want to reformat huge swaths of code, have a blast. On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > Agree, which is why I'd rather just nail this once rather than dribble it > in. > > It's reasonable to say you just don't think the formatting

Re: Cleanup Math

Agree, which is why I'd rather just nail this once rather than dribble it in. It's reasonable to say you just don't think the formatting and style stuff matters, but I find it does, indirectly, from a "broken windows policy" perspective. If your code *looks* a bit uneven and inconsistent, people h

Re: Cleanup Math

Erggg. once I again I will state that I strongly prefer Grant's approach. Do findbugs and formatting "errors" actually cause people physical pain? Why does this keep coming up? -jake ps. no I doubt anyone is working on those files. Doesn't change my opinion of massive formatting checkins

Re: Cleanup Math

I'd prefer to have a quick big-bang change, if indeed there aren't any outstanding patches. (If only to retroactively justify the fact that I just did the same to core and examples.) I think this is something we should focus on fixing up now, then going forward we can actually pay attention to chec

Re: Cleanup Math

Correct me If I am wrong, I believe there are no conflicts for many of the following top violators (except the matrix/linalg which Jake may have some changes). So there shouldn't be a problem with formatting these. Is anyone working on any of these classes? Robin filename l m h number trunk/math/

Re: Cleanup Math

There are arguments in both directions. In my view, the ideal is: 1) declare a target date. 2) everyone clears the deck of patches. 3) Reformat Grant's proposal, which goes 1) have a reason to modify some particular bit 2) check in patch 3) check in reformat before someone else starts a patch i

Re: Cleanup Math

On May 29, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Robin Anil wrote: > Math module clearly doesn't conform to the style guidelines. Does it > make sense to go and clean it entirely or should we do it for the ones > we use, when we use it? > > I'm not a big fan of massive formatting changes. It breaks a lot of oth

Cleanup Math

Math module clearly doesn't conform to the style guidelines. Does it make sense to go and clean it entirely or should we do it for the ones we use, when we use it? Robin