Sounds reasonable. But I suppose the question we should ask ourselves is: do we want a 1.7 or a 2.0? I’d be happy with either.
-Rob > On Feb 20, 2019, at 4:56 PM, Bruno P. Kinoshita <ki...@apache.org> wrote: > > > We have a few things ported from Lang that are deprecated and could be > removed. > > > But I have reverted my change in this pull request: > > > https://github.com/apache/commons-text/pull/102 > > > It introduces back the constant and the method removed, and also uses the old > code for the edit distance. But the contributed new code is still there (i.e. > I did not remove JaroWinklerSimilarity). > > > This was suggested by another user in the pull request for TEXT-104, and I > believe Benedikt and Rob also suggested something similar. > > > So if there are no objections I will merge it later this tonight or tomorrow, > and create a ticket in JIRA for 2.0 to replace the code, and fix the TODO > tags. > > > This way we can leave 2.0 for later, and possibly discuss other major changes > like Java modules, changes for Java 11, etc. > > > How does that sound? > > > Bruno > > > > > > > On Thursday, 21 February 2019, 10:50:36 am NZDT, Gary Gregory > <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Are we really ready for a 2.0? How much deprecated stuff do we carry? > > I plan on taking a closer look at the jarod distance issue tonight or > tomorrow. > > Gary > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 13:33 Pascal Schumacher <pascalschumac...@gmx.net > wrote: > >> I'm fine with either solution, but my preference would be to remove all >> deprecated stuff and release version 2.0. >> >>> Am 20.02.2019 um 08:42 schrieb Bruno P. Kinoshita: >>> Hi all, >>> Just finished merging a pull request to TEXT-104, where the JaroWinkler >> distance was updated. The class was actually computing a text similarity >> score, not an edit distance. The user that contributed did a great job >> moving the logic into a separate class, then updating the method to return >> a distance instead. >>> Later I realized this would break both behaviour and binary >> compatibility. >>> So just wondering what others think. Is it time to gather a few more >> issues in text, maybe even consider updating libraries/java/etc, drop >> @Deprecated stuff, and prepare a 2.0? Or is it too soon, and instead revert >> moving the code to a branch, and update TEXT-104 with a note about the >> branch? >>> CheersBruno >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
