Hello Gilles,
Gilles schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016 um
21:31 Uhr:
> Hello.
>
> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>
Do I understand correctly that Commons would have a component Commons Math
a
+1, random generators is a good fit for a Commons component.
Emmanuel Bourg
Le 21/06/2016 à 21:31, Gilles a écrit :
> Hello.
>
> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>
> This vote is dedicated
Le 21/06/2016 à 21:30, Gilles a écrit :
> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
> Standard mathematical functions (either missing from "java.lang.Math",
> or faster or more accurate than their counterpart in the JDK) and
> floating point utilities.
-0, I don't feel the scop
+1 this seems like a useful and self-contained functionality that is not in
the Java API
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
> -0
>
> (I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first, so
> that CM can take such decisions without involving others. OTOH, I
> wo
Oops, thanks.
I remember thinking I need to add the headers, but got distracted and forgot ...
On 22 June 2016 at 01:17, wrote:
> Repository: commons-crypto
> Updated Branches:
> refs/heads/master 5c14932be -> bbc4aaa06
>
>
> Add missing license headers.
>
> Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.
On 22 June 2016 at 07:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>
>> I think this should slo go to the dist area. WDYT?
>
> If we had a chance to simply edit some file, I'd do it. But this
> "deploying the whole site" is somehow beyond my skills. (Or, ma
sebb schrieb am Mi., 22. Juni 2016 um 10:46 Uhr:
> On 22 June 2016 at 07:50, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Benedikt Ritter
> wrote:
> >
> >> I think this should slo go to the dist area. WDYT?
> >
> > If we had a chance to simply edit some file, I'd do it. But thi
Le 21/06/2016 à 21:32, Gilles a écrit :
> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
> Representation of rational numbers
>
> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and packages:
> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
-0, I expect this to remain in the core math
+1 although some of the transforms are on the reals, so this may need to be
nuanced later
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> Hello.
>
> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>
> Thi
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:19:42 +, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Hello Gilles,
Gilles schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016
um
21:31 Uhr:
Hello.
This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
Do I understand cor
Gilles schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016 um
21:31 Uhr:
> Hello.
>
> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>
> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
>Uniform (pseudo-)random number
Gilles schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016 um
21:32 Uhr:
> Hello.
>
> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>
> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
>Representation of rational num
+/- 0 I'm unsure.
We already have some Math code in Commons Lang. Maybe this code would fit
into o.a.c.lang3.math ?
OTOH it's a big codebase, it may make sense to make a separate component
out of it.
The scope is pretty math centric. So a Math TLP may be a better home for
this.
Benedikt
Gilles
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:45:33 +, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
+/- 0 I'm unsure.
We already have some Math code in Commons Lang. Maybe this code would
fit
into o.a.c.lang3.math ?
In principle, yes, but I'd be wary of a big codebase that becomes less
and less focused.
I think that whatever is a
YW :-)
On Jun 22, 2016 1:43 AM, "sebb" wrote:
> Oops, thanks.
>
> I remember thinking I need to add the headers, but got distracted and
> forgot ...
>
> On 22 June 2016 at 01:17, wrote:
> > Repository: commons-crypto
> > Updated Branches:
> > refs/heads/master 5c14932be -> bbc4aaa06
> >
> >
>
I agree with Benedikt. Plus, I have no idea who in Commons will maintain this
component since the “Math” guys say they con’t want it.
Ralph
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:26 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
>
> -0
>
> (I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first, so
> that CM can
I agree with Jochen. What to do with the Math stuff should be decided after the
organizational things are done.
Ralph
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:26 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
>
> -0
>
> (I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first, so
> that CM can take such decisions wi
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:35:43 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
I agree with Benedikt. Plus, I have no idea who in Commons will
maintain this component since the “Math” guys say they con’t want it.
I gave concrete (positive) arguments for having the components
submitted
to this vote (see other threads
+1
Brent
Some time ago I opened an issue for this and attached a patch. I see that
some of the other Commons projects are moving to GitHub. Any chance that
will happen for dbutils?
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hello Robert,
>
> Robert Huffman schrieb am Do., 19. Mai 2016 u
Nothing is moving to GitHub. Some projects are moving from Svn to Git
within Apache and then being _mirrored_ to GitHub.
Gary
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Robert Huffman
wrote:
> Some time ago I opened an issue for this and attached a patch. I see that
> some of the other Commons projects a
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:35:43 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> I agree with Benedikt. Plus, I have no idea who in Commons will
>> maintain this component since the “Math” guys say they con’t want it.
>>
>
> I gave concrete (positive) arguments for hav
Got it. Thanks.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> Nothing is moving to GitHub. Some projects are moving from Svn to Git
> within Apache and then being _mirrored_ to GitHub.
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Robert Huffman
> wrote:
>
> > Some time ago I opened an
First, I must apologize for being a little sloppy in my analysis of the RC.
As previously noted https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-262 is open and
is a problem for Daikon. However, I just noticed my changes - as applied by
r1702349 | sebb | 2015-09-10 16:30:33 -0700 (Thu, 10 Sep 2015)
GitHub mirrors are mainly available to make it easier for users to
contribute pull requests instead of patches.
On 22 June 2016 at 10:59, Robert Huffman wrote:
> Got it. Thanks.
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
> > Nothing is moving to GitHub. Some projects are movin
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:30:08 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Gilles
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:35:43 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
I agree with Benedikt. Plus, I have no idea who in Commons will
maintain this component since the “Math” guys say they con’t want
it
Github user esend7881 closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/commons-io/pull/1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
>From the Peanut Gallery,
All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest to me that
the [VOTE]s are premature.
I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are at best
straw votes and generally serve to establish that there is no consensus because
of a
On 22/06/2016 19:04, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> From the Peanut Gallery,
>
> All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest to me
> that the [VOTE]s are premature.
>
> I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are at best
> straw votes and generally
I wonder if we could reframe the way we are talking here.
I like that we have been fairly civilized.
I like that email let's me read and write at my own time. But we are going
in circles sometimes. With so many threads, it's hard to track it all.
I am not sure if a (video or not) conference call
Hi Gary
Gary Gregory wrote:
> I wonder if we could reframe the way we are talking here.
>
> I like that we have been fairly civilized.
>
> I like that email let's me read and write at my own time. But we are going
> in circles sometimes. With so many threads, it's hard to track it all.
>
> I a
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Gilles wrote:
>
> But who is "us"?
> Right now, I'm proposing to do something together. And if you look
> at the commit log, I'm the one doing something alone for the last 6
> months. Or CM would have dormant already.
>
> I'm OK setting up the new components, w
This thread seems to have died. I am confused why no proposal has been created.
7 people is certainly enough to propose something. Or is the desire simply to
remain a subproject of Commons?
Ralph
> On Jun 18, 2016, at 7:08 PM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Gil
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> This thread seems to have died. I am confused why no proposal has been
> created. 7 people is certainly enough to propose something. Or is the desire
> simply to remain a subproject of Commons?
I diagnose some authority confusion here. I fea
Nice one!
schrieb am Mi., 22. Juni 2016 um 23:26:
> Author: ebourg
> Revision: 1743480
> Modified property: svn:log
>
> Modified: svn:log at Wed Jun 22 21:26:29 2016
>
> --
> --- svn:log (original)
> +++ svn:log Wed Jun
Le 22/06/2016 à 23:59, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
> Nice one!
...one of the few SVN features I'll miss after the switch to Git (along
with externals and empty directories support).
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@common
Hello,
Fist post, so please let me know if I have posted to the wrong place.
Our third party credit card processor has advised us that Mastercard
numbers can be 16,17, 18, or 19 digits. Previously the card number was
only 16 digits long. The Creditcard validator enforces 16 digits, but
rejects
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:04:48 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
From the Peanut Gallery,
All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest
to me that the [VOTE]s are premature.
I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are
at best straw votes and generally
Gilles wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:04:48 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> From the Peanut Gallery,
>>
>> All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest
>> to me that the [VOTE]s are premature.
>>
>> I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are
>>
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:14:19 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Gilles
wrote:
But who is "us"?
Right now, I'm proposing to do something together. And if you look
at the commit log, I'm the one doing something alone for the last 6
months. Or CM would have dormant already.
On 22 June 2016 at 23:15, Bert Put wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Fist post, so please let me know if I have posted to the wrong place.
Right place for initial contact.
- but we prefer people not to use their fists up front ;-)
> Our third party credit card processor has advised us that Mastercard
> number
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:58:10 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Gilles wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:04:48 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
From the Peanut Gallery,
All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest
to me that the [VOTE]s are premature.
I don't understand the incli
Is it possible for a committer in Commons to simply declare Lazy Consensus and
checkin code to a new branch?
If so go ahead and see if a community forms. If a substantive conversation
occurs.
If not then propose it and VOTE on giving Giles a branch (olive or fig) and see
what happens?
Regards
Gilles doesn’t need anyone’s permission to create a branch. He only has a
problem if someone votes -1. But I can’t imagine why anyone would vote -1 to a
commit on a branch. The only thing he needs permission for is making a release
- in the form of 3 +1 votes and more +1’s than -1’s from PMC m
Should be Commons Code*c*
schrieb am Do., 23. Juni 2016 um 00:05:
> Author: ggregory
> Date: Wed Jun 22 22:05:46 2016
> New Revision: 1749789
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1749789&view=rev
> Log:
> [CONFIGURATION-635] Update optional dependency Apache Commons Code from
> 1.9 to 1.10.
Fixed in SVN. TY!
Gary
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Benedikt Ritter
wrote:
> Should be Commons Code*c*
>
> schrieb am Do., 23. Juni 2016 um 00:05:
>
>> Author: ggregory
>> Date: Wed Jun 22 22:05:46 2016
>> New Revision: 1749789
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1749789&view=rev
Le 23/06/2016 à 01:36, Gilles a écrit :
> the only thing that
> was concretely accepted as "fine" is the fork of Commons Math
> outside Apache!
I don't remember voting and accepting the fork, do you? The fork was not
a decision from the Commons PMC. We had no other choice than
acknowledging it, b
47 matches
Mail list logo
