On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 9:15 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > I think we have agreed to keep the 2.x releases after 2.2 as pure bugfix. I guess in theory we could end up in the scenario you describe above, but I don't expect it to happen. In case it does, we can use the @since with two versions method you suggest.
Phil >> 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
