[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-configuration-test (in module apache-commons) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-configuration-test has an issue affecting its community integrati

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-lang3 (in module apache-commons) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-lang3 has an issue affecting its community integration. This issue

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-jelly (in module commons-jelly) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-jelly has an issue affecting its community integration. This issue

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-jelly-test (in module commons-jelly) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-jelly-test has an issue affecting its community integration. This

[math] Releasing 2.0

Looks like we are - at last - ready to cut 2.0. All that remains is 1) resolve MATH-260 and MATH-261 (which I am +1 as marking fixed, based on Luc's last changes) 2) push remaining unscheduled issues to 2.1 3) generate clirr report 4) enhance the maven-changes-report to create proper rele

Re: [math] Releasing 2.0

Phil Steitz a écrit : > Looks like we are - at last - ready to cut 2.0. All that remains is > > 1) resolve MATH-260 and MATH-261 (which I am +1 as marking fixed, based > on Luc's last changes) +1 > 2) push remaining unscheduled issues to 2.1 Concerning MATH-268 I would consider closing it w

Re: [math] Releasing 2.0

Luc Maisonobe a écrit : > Phil Steitz a écrit : >> Looks like we are - at last - ready to cut 2.0. All that remains is >> >> 1) resolve MATH-260 and MATH-261 (which I am +1 as marking fixed, based >> on Luc's last changes) > > +1 > >> 2) push remaining unscheduled issues to 2.1 > > Concernin

Re: [math] Releasing 2.0

Resolving these with warnings and a bug against 2.1 to improve accuracy seems like a good option. It prevents API changes in 2.1 On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > > > > I will do the RM-ing if no one else wants to but would appreciate help > > in writing a summary of API ch

Re: [math] Releasing 2.0

Never mind my vote for releasing with a bug. That is the best solution! On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > I got it! It now seems to me the problem was numerical instability, not > an error in the equations or implementation. Step size growth should be > very slow for these

Re: [math] Releasing 2.0

Luc Maisonobe wrote: Luc Maisonobe a écrit : Phil Steitz a écrit : Looks like we are - at last - ready to cut 2.0. All that remains is 1) resolve MATH-260 and MATH-261 (which I am +1 as marking fixed, based on Luc's last changes) +1 2) push remaining unscheduled issu

Re: [math] Releasing 2.0

Phil Steitz a écrit : > Luc Maisonobe wrote: >> Luc Maisonobe a écrit : >> >>> Phil Steitz a écrit : >>> Looks like we are - at last - ready to cut 2.0. All that remains is 1) resolve MATH-260 and MATH-261 (which I am +1 as marking fixed, based on Luc's last change

Re: [codec] Release Manager for 1.4

*nominates Gary* :) aka... not me. I'm still hoping someone else can RM Collections so I can stay focused on Lang and Taglibs RMing. On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All: > > Do we have a volunteer to act as release manager for Codec 1.4? > > Gary > >