On 12/15/12 8:50 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 12/15/12 4:07 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:03:14PM -0800, Phil Steitz wrote: >>> The classes in .optimization.fitting seem to have been duplicated / >>> moved to .fitting, but the originals are not deprecated (though some >>> methods in them are). Shouldn't we deprecate the original classes? >> Yes. In fact, all the classes under "o.a.c.m.optimization" are deprecated; >> I intended to mark them as such, but somehow got distracted by other >> things... ;-) >> Thanks for the reminder. >> >>> Also, @since for the moved versions should be 3.1, correct? >> It depends what is meant by "@since"... Is it the appearance of a new >> feature (algorithm or data structure), or the actual naming or renaming >> of a class or method? [There are arguments for each, but both cannot be >> accomodated with a single tag.] > Good point. I would say leave the moved version @since tags as is. >> In the former case, the answer to your question would be no since it is a >> only a refactoring of existing features. >> >> In the latter, we'd have a problem: many "@since" tags are 1.2, 2.0, ... >> whereas they should _all_ be 3.0 because of the package name change (from >> "o.a.c.math" to "o.a.c.math3"). >> Since that had not been a blocker for a major release, I propose that we >> postpone the resolution of this situation to the next release (opening a >> JIRA report) or until we are sure how to best use "@since" must be used in >> CM. > I need a couple more hours to review and fill in the rest of the > missing ones.
Done. Phil > > Phil > > >> >> Regards, >> Gilles >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
