Hi. Le mer. 21 juil. 2021 à 05:09, Matt Juntunen <matt.a.juntu...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > Even though I've included the example module binaries in releases for > commons-numbers and commons-geometry, I would vote that we only > include them in source form in the future.
Well the question is whether *this* is an acceptable option for a "Commons" component. Currently: Whatever is officially released (i.e. as source) is also provided as (convenience) binaries. IIUC departing from that needs a *vote*. [What we can readily do is (entirely) exclude a module from the release (as was done for [Numbers] v1.0).] If the rest of the message is not convincing, feel free to start a [Vote] thread. PersonalIy I don't mind either way, but I'm not sure that special handling of the "examples" is worth the trouble. > For these particular > projects, they do not seem to be worthwhile to have as binaries. Well, the benchmarks are in the "examples" module, and for one thing, it would be nice if they can be run without maven installed (I don't know whether it already works). The rest are usually toy applications but they are also meant as a "Get Started" user guide; having them part of the release ensures that they are up-to-date. Also the "examples" module sometimes contain non-trivial applications (see e.g. [RNG] thanks to Alex), and having some component exclude it while others don't will be a potential source of confusion (for the RM and the reviewers). > I have not looked at the commons-math examples, though. Those that illustrate usage of the "neuralnet" codes are some kind of validation tests; without them, unit tests are not sufficient to demonstrate that the code works as expected (cf. the relatively low coverage). Regards, Gilles >>> [....] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
