Ok. Was just trying to make a suggestion to think about shooting for incremental changes specifically with [math] to go along with all of the good work with the other mathematical projects.
-Rob > On Jan 2, 2018, at 5:43 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > > Hello. > > On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:27:00 -0500, Rob Tompkins wrote: >>> On Jan 1, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Bill Igoe <billi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Gang, >>> >>> I noted a recent exchange on OLS regarding Math Commons. Thus far I find >>> the Math Commons working flawlessly. I am also working on a project for >>> pure real time financial optimization using the Linear Programming >>> algorithm of Math commons. I designed my code to flip between the QSOPT >>> package and the Math common LP algo to check the robustness and consistency >>> of results. I get exactly same answers in both and that LP is using over >>> 2000 variables and 3000 constraints! >> >> Many thanks for the encouragement. >> >> All - any thoughts on trying to do a release on [math] is the 3.X >> branch stable? > > This branch is unsupported; making a new release based on it will > send the wrong signal and is likely to generate bug reports already > filed on "master" (with "Fix version" set to 4.0), and sometimes > fixed there (or in "RNG" or in "Numbers"). > > You'd basically scratch almost 3 years of continuous work: > ---CUT--- > commit e4e1ac23c734f65686be4bc0e503f82f941afd4d > Author: Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com> > Date: Mon Feb 16 23:37:23 2015 +0100 > > Update for next development iteration: commons-math4 > ---CUT--- > >> Are there any small bug fixes we can do to make small >> incremental changes and release those? > > Any time spent on back-porting fixes from "master" will be better > used for advancing towards the release of "Commons Numbers", and > other components with supported (reviewed and fixed) codes, > according to the "plan" (cf. ML archive for details). > Help welcome. > >> >> -Rob >> >>> >>> Keep up the good work and I am looking forward to the 'split' between >>> Commons Math and Statistics. > > As outlined in another thread, high-level functionalities with > positive feedback, like the one referred to here, can be ported > to a new component, with low-level supporting codes (but possibly > buggy) being hidden in "internal" packages until they are ported > (or released) themselves. > Comments, and help with experimenting, on this approach welcome. > E.g. the contents of "o.a.c.m.stat.regression" would become a > module of "Commons Stat". > >>> >>> Cheers to you all and have a great 2018 > > Thanks and best regards, > Gilles > >>> >>> Bill Igoe > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
