On 24 January 2011 00:16, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:54 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 23 January 2011 22:18, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:57 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 23 January 2011 09:58, Luc Maisonobe <luc.maison...@free.fr> wrote: >>>>> Le 23/01/2011 01:58, s...@apache.org a écrit : >>>>>> Author: sebb >>>>>> Date: Sun Jan 23 00:58:07 2011 >>>>>> New Revision: 1062304 >>>>>> >>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1062304&view=rev >>>>>> Log: >>>>>> MATH-496 Create FastMath copySign methods >>>>> >>>>> I was also creating these methods. >>>>> I have created all the missing ones and implemented hypot directly, so >>>>> don't bother doing it too. >>>> >>>> OK. >>>> >>>> I've mainly been working in Math trunk, and porting back to 2.2, so >>>> I'll add your new methods back to trunk. >>>> I'll also merge my fixes to nextAfter. >>>> >>>> FastMath and FastMathTest should be the same in both. >>>> >>>> Apart from the @since marker in FastMath - perhaps we can use @since >>>> 2.2, 3.0 for that? >>> >>> Should be @since 2.2 >>> >>> Lets try to get all the fixes into 2.2. >> >> Yes, indeed. I think we are quite close now. >> >> == >> >> What I meant was - the class is new for 2.2 and also new for 3.0. >> The class and its test class(es) are currently the same for both >> versions of Math. >> >> We obviously need to put @since 2.2 in the class for the 2.2 release. >> Is that sufficient also for the 3.0 release? > > I think so. As long as we release 2.2 before 3.0. > >> Or do we need to put @since 3.0 in it for that? >> >> Strictly speaking it is new to 3.0 too. > > I don't understand what you mean by this. All classes added since 2.1 > are in this sense new for 3.0 as well. > >> >> So maybe we can put: >> >> @since 2.0 >> @since 3.0 >> >> or >> >> @since 2.0,3.0 >> >> in the (one) copy of the file. >> >> This would be easier than having to fix the @since marker in one of the >> files. > > I am not following you here. I must be missing something. To me this > is no different from classes added in 2.0, 2.1, 2.2. What matters is > when the class is actually released. There is no harm in the 2.0 and > 3.0 versions diverging even in incompatible ways. The @since tag > tells the version number of first release. Unless you are thinking > that 3.0 might be released before 2.0? Or we need to do something > different during the time that neither has been released? What am I > missing?
Perhaps it does not matter here. But suppose we release 2.2 and then 3.0, with FastMath @since 2.2. That works fine, since 3.0 is later than 2.2. We then release 2.3 with a new class, which is also later added to 3.1. Do we leave the @since as 2.3? In that case, users might think it was already in 3.0, which is not the case. Or do we change it to @since 3.1? Perhaps 3.0 is special in this regard, as it is the first of the 3.x releases. > Phil > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
