commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: [math] the 2.2 release saga conclusion ?
Date Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:12:49 GMT
On 11 February 2011 20:58, Phil Steitz <> wrote:
> On 2/11/11 3:42 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 11/02/2011 21:34, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>> On 2/11/11 3:03 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>> Le 11/02/2011 20:23, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>>>> On 2/11/11 1:53 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>>>> Le 11/02/2011 19:07, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>>>>>> On 2/11/11 12:49 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> I would like to have 2.2 out as soon as possible. I would
like to
>>>>>>>> propose yet another intermediate solution, not a perfect
one, but trying
>>>>>>>> to mitigate everything that has been said here. Remember
this is *only*
>>>>>>>> for 2.2 and it does *not* mean anything about 3.0 or any
>>>>>>>> discussions.
>>>>>>>> So I propose we release 2.2 with the following changes relative
to what
>>>>>>>> is currently in the repository:
>>>>>>>>  - change FunctionEvaluationException, DerivativeException
>>>>>>>>    MatrixVisitorException to unchecked again by making
>>>>>>>>    extend o.a.c.math.exception.MathUserException
>>>>>>>>  - change ConvergenceException to unchecked by making it
>>>>>>>>    o.a.c.math.exception.MathIllegalStateException
>>>>>>>>  - undeprecate all these exceptions
>>>>>>>>  - accept the 17 CLIRR errors remaining after these changes
>>>>>>>>    (13 related to exceptions, 4 related to ODE)
>>>>>>>>  - accept the 30 CLIRR warnings remaining after these changes
>>>>>>>>    (all of them related to exceptions)
>>>>>>>>  - accept the 422 CLIRR infos remaining after these changes
>>>>>>>> This is by no means a perfect solution, I really tried to
reach a
>>>>>>>> compromise between several points of view. As each compromise,
>>>>>>>> would have something to tell against it but please don't
start another
>>>>>>>> lengthy discussion and even less a flame war. There is no
>>>>>>>> intention behind this and the choices presented would be
put only in 2.2
>>>>>>>> branch, not in trunk. The only intention is to be able to
publish 2.2.
>>>>>>>> What do you think ?
>>>>>>> Can you create a Clirr report showing the issues above and put
it in
>>>>>>> ~luc so we can all look at it?
>>>>>> Yes, I have put it there:
>>>>>> <>.
>>>>>>> Also, what would it take to fully eliminate the exceptions-related
>>>>>>> errors?
>>>>>> This would mean going back to checked exception as most errors are
>>>>>> "Removed org.apache.commons.math.MathException from the list of
>>>>>> superclasses"
>>>>> So from the user perspective, the compatibility issue is that code
>>>>> that catches MathException will in some cases propagate runtime
>>>>> exceptions instead.   This sounds ridiculous, but what would be the
>>>>> implications of just reverting the hierarchy so catching
>>>>> MathException would work as before, but make MathException itself
>>>>> unchecked?
>>>> This could be done. I sincerely simply did not think about it.
>>>>> Sorry if this seems to be walking into the kind of discussion you
>>>>> did not want to reopen at this point; but I am just trying to see
>>>>> what we might be able to do to prevent users having to make code
>>>>> changes to have their apps that use 2.1 work safely in 2.2.
>>>> I would say we can't do anything. There are the ODE changes which are
>>>> flagged as errors by CLIRR even for things which clearly do not belong
>>>> to the public API like private fields having been replaced. There are
>>>> also the 2.1 tests that Sebb checked against 2.2 and which fail due to
>>>> other changes which are not flagged at all by CLIRR because they are
>>>> semantic changes.
>>> What if we reverted all of the incompatible changes other than those
>>> required to fix the ODE bug?  That would mean
>>> 1. Revert changes in exception hierarchy
>>> 2. Revert semantic changes in equals that Sebb flagged
>>> 3. Anything else?
>>> I honestly don't recall anything else and we could look through the
>>> tickets to verify no other semantic changes
>>>>> I will add at this point that if we just s/2.2/3.0 and s/3.0/4.0, I
>>>>> am fine releasing as is.
>>>> 2.2 *is* a clumsy version, so promoting it to 3.0 would be really a bad
>>>> idea as it would imply telling to users « we have done great changes,
>>>> look at them » to only change everything again.
>>>> Current 3.0 is more in line with what we want. It will certainly not be
>>>> perfect either, but much better.
>>>> So rather than patching this mess once again, we could simply drop 2.2
>>>> completely and concentrate our efforts in 3.0 to be able to publish it
>>>> soon. However, this is not an easy decision. As some of you already
>>>> know, and as Gary said in his interview recently, we have some great
>>>> news to publish about some uses of [math]. Dropping 2.2 and waiting
>>>> months for 3.0 would be really really bad for this.
>>>> The alternative is therefore:
>>>>  - do we publish a 2.2 that is clumsy but fixes many important bugs
>>>>    and introduces some incompatibilities
>>>>  - do we consider we can publish 3.0 in the next two months so we
>>>>    can afford dropping 2.2
>>>> Please, choose one option and stick to it. I am exhausted and depressed,
>>>> I don't want to argue anymore.
>>> I am really sorry about this, Luc.  I should have complained more
>>> about the incompatible changes as they were introduced.  We now have
>>> a mess to clean up and I have to take the lion's share of the blame
>>> for that.  So I will volunteer to do the compatability-restoring
>>> changes if we can agree to them and get a 2.2 RC that has only the
>>> ODE issue (which looks minor, from a user standpoint).   Would you
>>> be OK with a third alternative, which is release 2.2 with only the
>>> ODE incompatibility?
>> Yes.
> Great.  As long as others are OK with this, I will get to work on
> this this weekend.


I can do MathUtils if that helps.

May also have time for some others.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message