On 11/13/2015 08:12 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 10:34:43 -0600, Ole Ersoy wrote:
If I'm interested in some functionality that is 'beta' then I first
have to realize that it's 'beta'...Maybe just tag the branch beta.
After that there's probably (Judging from the number of people
commun
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 10:34:43 -0600, Ole Ersoy wrote:
If I'm interested in some functionality that is 'beta' then I first
have to realize that it's 'beta'...Maybe just tag the branch beta.
After that there's probably (Judging from the number of people
communicating here) 1/2 people interested. Isn
If I'm interested in some functionality that is 'beta' then I first have to
realize that it's 'beta'...Maybe just tag the branch beta. After that there's
probably (Judging from the number of people communicating here) 1/2 people
interested. Isn't it easier for them to just just check out the b
On 7 November 2015 at 03:17, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>
> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
> to Commons rules - no breaks within 3.0, 3.1, ..., 3.x... or 5.0,
> 5.1... bu
On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 14:29:31 +, sebb wrote:
On 8 November 2015 at 13:50, Gilles
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 00:45:38 +, sebb wrote:
So is the idea to change both the Maven artifact ID and package
name
for the beta releases?
i.e. the stable releases would use
Maven AID: commons-math4
On 8 November 2015 at 13:50, Gilles wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 00:45:38 +, sebb wrote:
>>
>> So is the idea to change both the Maven artifact ID and package name
>> for the beta releases?
>>
>> i.e. the stable releases would use
>>
>> Maven AID: commons-math4
>> package: org.apache.commons.ma
On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 00:45:38 +, sebb wrote:
So is the idea to change both the Maven artifact ID and package name
for the beta releases?
i.e. the stable releases would use
Maven AID: commons-math4
package: org.apache.commons.math4
and beta releases:
Maven AID: commons-math4-beta{n}
package:
So is the idea to change both the Maven artifact ID and package name
for the beta releases?
i.e. the stable releases would use
Maven AID: commons-math4
package: org.apache.commons.math4
and beta releases:
Maven AID: commons-math4-beta{n}
package: org.apache.commons.math4.beta{n}
Have I got thi
On 11/7/15 2:15 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 11/7/15 12:58 PM, James Carman wrote:
>> As long as the maven coordinates follow suit, go for it. The community will
>> let us know if it is a pain in the ass. Also, no need to worry about
>> even/odd with this approach
> I think its better to use the eve
On 11/7/15 12:58 PM, James Carman wrote:
> As long as the maven coordinates follow suit, go for it. The community will
> let us know if it is a pain in the ass. Also, no need to worry about
> even/odd with this approach
I think its better to use the even/odd approach with this package
naming trick
As long as the maven coordinates follow suit, go for it. The community will
let us know if it is a pain in the ass. Also, no need to worry about
even/odd with this approach
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:29 PM Gilles wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 16:52:21 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > A roughly equi
On 11/7/15 10:29 AM, Gilles wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 16:52:21 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> A roughly equivalent alternative would be to release beta artifacts
>> until the API stabilizes and use a different base package and
>> different
>> Maven coordinates for each iteration.
>>
>> For examp
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 16:52:21 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
A roughly equivalent alternative would be to release beta artifacts
until the API stabilizes and use a different base package and
different
Maven coordinates for each iteration.
For example, commons-math 4.0-beta1 is released with the
or
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:17 AM Phil Steitz wrote:
> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>
> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
> to Commons rules - no breaks within 3.0, 3.1, ..., 3.x... or 5.0,
> 5.1..
A roughly equivalent alternative would be to release beta artifacts
until the API stabilizes and use a different base package and different
Maven coordinates for each iteration.
For example, commons-math 4.0-beta1 is released with the
org.apache.commons:commons-math4-beta1 coordinates and the clas
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 16:53:00 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:02:01 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/6/15 4:46 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Phil Steitz
wrote:
On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Gilles wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:02:01 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 11/6/15 4:46 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Phil Steitz
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 11/6/15 4:46 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Phil Steitz
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > Here is an idea that mig
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:02:01 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/6/15 4:46 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Phil Steitz
wrote:
On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re ba
On 11/6/15 4:46 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
> compatibility, versioni
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
> >>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
> >>>
> >>> Agree that
On 11/6/15 2:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
>>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>>>
>>> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically
>>> adhere
>
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>>
>> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically
>> adhere
>> to Commons rules - no breaks w
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 12:21:46 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/6/15 11:02 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:36:51 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/6/15 10:31 AM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backwar
On 11/6/15 11:02 AM, Gilles wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:36:51 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 11/6/15 10:31 AM, Gilles wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
compatibility, versioning and RE
Le 06/11/2015 18:31, Gilles a écrit :
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>>
>> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
>> to Commons rules -
Le 06/11/2015 18:18, sebb a écrit :
> On 6 November 2015 at 16:17, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>>
>> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
>> to Commons rules - no breaks withi
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:36:51 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/6/15 10:31 AM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
compatibility, versioning and RERO:
Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs -
On 11/6/15 10:31 AM, Gilles wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>>
>> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
>> to Commons rules - no
Hi.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:17:18 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
compatibility, versioning and RERO:
Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
to Commons rules - no breaks within 3.0, 3.1, ..., 3.x... or 5.0,
5.1... b
On 11/6/15 10:18 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 6 November 2015 at 16:17, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
>> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>>
>> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
>> to Commons rules - no breaks within 3
On 6 November 2015 at 16:17, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
> compatibility, versioning and RERO:
>
> Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
> to Commons rules - no breaks within 3.0, 3.1, ..., 3.x... or 5.0,
> 5.1... bu
Here is an idea that might break our deadlock re backward
compatibility, versioning and RERO:
Agree that odd numbered versions have stable APIs - basically adhere
to Commons rules - no breaks within 3.0, 3.1, ..., 3.x... or 5.0,
5.1... but even-numbered lines can include breaks - so 4.0 and 4.1
mi
33 matches
Mail list logo
