Le 11/02/2011 21:34, Phil Steitz a écrit : > On 2/11/11 3:03 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >> Le 11/02/2011 20:23, Phil Steitz a écrit : >>> On 2/11/11 1:53 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >>>> Le 11/02/2011 19:07, Phil Steitz a écrit : >>>>> On 2/11/11 12:49 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to have 2.2 out as soon as possible. I would like to >>>>>> propose yet another intermediate solution, not a perfect one, but trying >>>>>> to mitigate everything that has been said here. Remember this is *only* >>>>>> for 2.2 and it does *not* mean anything about 3.0 or any further >>>>>> discussions. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I propose we release 2.2 with the following changes relative to what >>>>>> is currently in the repository: >>>>>> >>>>>> - change FunctionEvaluationException, DerivativeException and >>>>>> MatrixVisitorException to unchecked again by making them >>>>>> extend o.a.c.math.exception.MathUserException >>>>>> - change ConvergenceException to unchecked by making it extend >>>>>> o.a.c.math.exception.MathIllegalStateException >>>>>> - undeprecate all these exceptions >>>>>> - accept the 17 CLIRR errors remaining after these changes >>>>>> (13 related to exceptions, 4 related to ODE) >>>>>> - accept the 30 CLIRR warnings remaining after these changes >>>>>> (all of them related to exceptions) >>>>>> - accept the 422 CLIRR infos remaining after these changes >>>>>> >>>>>> This is by no means a perfect solution, I really tried to reach a >>>>>> compromise between several points of view. As each compromise, everyone >>>>>> would have something to tell against it but please don't start another >>>>>> lengthy discussion and even less a flame war. There is no hidden >>>>>> intention behind this and the choices presented would be put only in 2.2 >>>>>> branch, not in trunk. The only intention is to be able to publish 2.2. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think ? >>>>>> >>>>> Can you create a Clirr report showing the issues above and put it in >>>>> ~luc so we can all look at it? >>>> Yes, I have put it there: >>>> <http://people.apache.org/~luc/clirr-report.html>. >>>> >>>>> Also, what would it take to fully eliminate the exceptions-related >>>>> errors? >>>> This would mean going back to checked exception as most errors are >>>> "Removed org.apache.commons.math.MathException from the list of >>>> superclasses" >>> So from the user perspective, the compatibility issue is that code >>> that catches MathException will in some cases propagate runtime >>> exceptions instead. This sounds ridiculous, but what would be the >>> implications of just reverting the hierarchy so catching >>> MathException would work as before, but make MathException itself >>> unchecked? >> This could be done. I sincerely simply did not think about it. >> >>> Sorry if this seems to be walking into the kind of discussion you >>> did not want to reopen at this point; but I am just trying to see >>> what we might be able to do to prevent users having to make code >>> changes to have their apps that use 2.1 work safely in 2.2. >> I would say we can't do anything. There are the ODE changes which are >> flagged as errors by CLIRR even for things which clearly do not belong >> to the public API like private fields having been replaced. There are >> also the 2.1 tests that Sebb checked against 2.2 and which fail due to >> other changes which are not flagged at all by CLIRR because they are >> semantic changes. >> > What if we reverted all of the incompatible changes other than those > required to fix the ODE bug? That would mean > > 1. Revert changes in exception hierarchy > 2. Revert semantic changes in equals that Sebb flagged > 3. Anything else? > > I honestly don't recall anything else and we could look through the > tickets to verify no other semantic changes >>> I will add at this point that if we just s/2.2/3.0 and s/3.0/4.0, I >>> am fine releasing as is. >> 2.2 *is* a clumsy version, so promoting it to 3.0 would be really a bad >> idea as it would imply telling to users « we have done great changes, >> look at them » to only change everything again. >> >> Current 3.0 is more in line with what we want. It will certainly not be >> perfect either, but much better. >> >> So rather than patching this mess once again, we could simply drop 2.2 >> completely and concentrate our efforts in 3.0 to be able to publish it >> soon. However, this is not an easy decision. As some of you already >> know, and as Gary said in his interview recently, we have some great >> news to publish about some uses of [math]. Dropping 2.2 and waiting >> months for 3.0 would be really really bad for this. >> >> The alternative is therefore: >> - do we publish a 2.2 that is clumsy but fixes many important bugs >> and introduces some incompatibilities >> - do we consider we can publish 3.0 in the next two months so we >> can afford dropping 2.2 >> >> Please, choose one option and stick to it. I am exhausted and depressed, >> I don't want to argue anymore. >> > I am really sorry about this, Luc. I should have complained more > about the incompatible changes as they were introduced. We now have > a mess to clean up and I have to take the lion's share of the blame > for that. So I will volunteer to do the compatability-restoring > changes if we can agree to them and get a 2.2 RC that has only the > ODE issue (which looks minor, from a user standpoint). Would you > be OK with a third alternative, which is release 2.2 with only the > ODE incompatibility?
Yes. Luc > > Phil >> >>> Phil >>>> Luc >>>> >>>>> Phil >>>>>> Luc >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
