On 2/11/11 4:12 PM, sebb wrote: > On 11 February 2011 20:58, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2/11/11 3:42 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> Great. As long as others are OK with this, I will get to work on >> this this weekend. > +1. > > I can do MathUtils if that helps. > > May also have time for some others. Thanks!
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
