On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 07:42:45PM +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Le 14/05/2011 17:54, Phil Steitz a écrit : > >On 5/14/11 8:31 AM, Dimitri Pourbaix wrote: > >>Phil, > >> > >>>Sorry, Dmitri, but that is not an acceptable "veto" from the ASF > >>>perspective. When you say "-1" to a technical (code-related) > >>>change, you need to provide a technical reason to support your > >>>veto. Do you have technical problems with the code being proposed > >>>for inclusion? > >> > >>In a strict democracy, there is nothing such as a veto! I am not > >>'vetoing' anything (and do not want to), I am only expressing my > >>opinion, as requested, to Luc's wish to add this component to math. > > > >OK. As a committer, you do have the ability to veto any code > >change. When you do that, you are expected to provide a technical > >reason. > > > >Can you explain a little more why you consider it a bad idea to > >include the [bsp] code in [math]? I understand (and share) your > >frustration on getting some aspects of the 3.0 API settled; but I > >think we are making progress and I don't see adding the bsp code as > >really making a difference there. It does not look to me like it > >will be hard to adapt the exceptions management or other aspects of > >the [bsp] API to whatever we settle on for [math] 3.0, and without > >speaking for him, I assume that Luc is willing to do whatever > >repackaging or other work is necessary to bring it in. > > The repackaging was almost already done when the component was put > in sandbox. Of course I will adapt strictly to the current [math] > API, i.e. I will use MathRuntimeException as the base class for > BSPException.
You'd better not: "MathRuntimeException" is scheduled for deletion. Cf. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-566 > [...] Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
