+1
Am Di., 19. Feb. 2019 um 22:35 Uhr schrieb Marcelo Vanzin
:
> I'm opening a vote based on recent discussions about the extra noise
> generated by github updates going to dev@. So please vote:
>
> - +1 to redirect github updates of all commons repos to the issues@ list
> - -1 to keep things as
I'm happy about the positive feedback. I'm currently a little bit busy at
work. I hope to be able to spike something at the end of next week.
Benedikt
Am Mo., 18. Feb. 2019 um 20:25 Uhr schrieb Matt Sicker :
> The DSL allows you to break out into parallel stages or sequential
> ones (or both). T
Am Mi., 20. Feb. 2019 um 08:58 Uhr schrieb Bruno P. Kinoshita <
ki...@apache.org>:
> 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
> On Feb 20, 2019, at 5:42 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>
> Am Mi., 20. Feb. 2019 um 08:58 Uhr schrieb Bruno P. Kinoshita <
> ki...@apache.org>:
>
>> Hi all,
>> Just finished merging a pull request to TEXT-104, where the JaroWinkler
>> distance was updated. The class was actually computing a te
+1
(Note. We still need to have the github messages either land on an email list
or generate jira’s for traceability. I almost think that we should have Pull
Requests generate jiras.)
> On Feb 19, 2019, at 4:35 PM, Marcelo Vanzin
> wrote:
>
> I'm opening a vote based on recent discussions ab
Is this a LAZY VOTE?
Gary
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 7:36 AM Rob Tompkins wrote:
> +1
>
> (Note. We still need to have the github messages either land on an email
> list or generate jira’s for traceability. I almost think that we should
> have Pull Requests generate jiras.)
>
> > On Feb 19, 2019,
+1
On February 20, 2019 at 08:41:15, Gary Gregory (garydgreg...@gmail.com)
wrote:
Is this a LAZY VOTE?
Gary
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 7:36 AM Rob Tompkins wrote:
> +1
>
> (Note. We still need to have the github messages either land on an email
> list or generate jira’s for traceability. I almo
+1
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 3:05 am Marcelo Vanzin,
wrote:
> I'm opening a vote based on recent discussions about the extra noise
> generated by github updates going to dev@. So please vote:
>
> - +1 to redirect github updates of all commons repos to the issues@ list
> - -1 to keep things as is
>
>
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 comp
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 5:41 AM Gary Gregory wrote:
> Is this a LAZY VOTE?
Sorry, but not familiar with the semantics of when to call a lazy vs.
non-lazy vote. Given the current number of votes, does it matter?
Rob:
> I almost think that we should have Pull Requests generate jiras.
I've seen th
Am 20.02.2019 um 19:39 schrieb Marcelo Vanzin:
Rob:
I almost think that we should have Pull Requests generate jiras.
I've seen this set up in a couple of projects and jira becomes
unreadable... the updates generated by github are horrible to read. I
really don't like them.
Imho the way to mak
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:13 AM Pascal Schumacher
wrote:
> Am 20.02.2019 um 19:39 schrieb Marcelo Vanzin:
> > Rob:
> >> I almost think that we should have Pull Requests generate jiras.
> > I've seen this set up in a couple of projects and jira becomes
> > unreadable... the updates generated by gi
+1
Oliver
Am 19.02.19 um 22:35 schrieb Marcelo Vanzin:
> I'm opening a vote based on recent discussions about the extra noise
> generated by github updates going to dev@. So please vote:
>
> - +1 to redirect github updates of all commons repos to the issues@ list
> - -1 to keep things as is
>
>
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 I'm fine with either solution, but my preference would be to remove all
> deprecated stuff and
kinow opened a new pull request #102: TEXT-104: deprecate JaroWinkler methods
for 2.0, and fix clirr report
URL: https://github.com/apache/commons-text/pull/102
This PR makes the Clirr report pass for 1.7. It keeps the new
`JaroWinklerSimilarity` class, but reverts the change in `JaroWinkl
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
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 wrote:
>
>
> We have a few things ported from Lang that are deprecated and could be
> removed.
>
>
> But I
kinow commented on issue #102: TEXT-104: deprecate JaroWinkler methods for 2.0,
and fix clirr report
URL: https://github.com/apache/commons-text/pull/102#issuecomment-465772523
Clirr report:
