commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luc Maisonobe <>
Subject Re: [Math] Towards release 3.1
Date Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:22:00 GMT
Le 12/09/2012 14:55, Thomas Neidhart a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Gilles Sadowski <
>> wrote:
>> Hello.
>> This thread was left alone for some time, although the main issue was not
>> settled: I requested the release of a new version of CM.
>> I quote my remarks from an earlier message in this thread:
>>> [...] issues resulted in some work being done, [...]
>>> My opinion is that releases must reflect that fact. Or, conversely, only
>>> "nothing new happened" is a reason for not providing a new release.
>>> Of course, there should be a balance between the work imposed by
>> preparing a
>>> release, and the updated contents to be released. I think that the
>> trade-off
>>> is already largely positive.
>> and
>>>>> "Wish" or "improvement" issues that miss a patch should not be
>> blocking the
>>>>> 3.1 release.
>> and
>>> Of course, I'd be all for setting a date for release 3.2 too!
>> Context:
>> I have to abide by the requirement to use an _official_ release of CM and
>> my
>> code relies on bug fixes present in the development version.
>> Are there any technical reasons to object to the starting of the release
>> process?
> Hi Gilles, all,
> I support the release request and we are already in September anyway (which
> was the envisioned release time of CM 3.1 afaikr).
> Regarding open issues from my side:
>  * I would like to fix MATH-848 before the release but will have time the
> next 2 weeks
>  * MATH-789: I did an initial analysis but failed to further proceed, maybe
> Luc can take a look?

I have done that (but Thomas will probably change the rank computation
as per another message).

>  * MATH-842: the fix I made seems to work, but needs more investigation,
> can be postponed
>  * MATH-819: more like a general problem and may be resolved as WONT FIX,
> The additions I proposed can all be postponed (and I need something to do
> over winter ;-)

I have also completed the first batch of work about the new
differentiation framework. Now the core stuff is in place, and it is
used in both the solvers package and in the optimizer package.

I will add new things to this first batch, of course, but none of them
should postpone 3.1.

As far as I am concerned, 3.1 could be released anytime now.


> Cheers,
> Thomas

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

View raw message