commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
Subject Re: [Numbers] First (partial) release
Date Fri, 11 May 2018 13:17:30 GMT
Executive summary (to the best of my knowledge):

Ready (IMHO) for release ("no known issues"):
  * Module "core"
  * Module "angle"
  * Module "arrays"
  * Class "Complex"

Not to be released:
  * Class "ComplexUtils" (outdated API to be replaced by "streams",
    insufficient coverage, ...)
  * Module "field" (no consensus about API and implementations;
    discussion has been pending for months)

Needs work:
  * Class "Fraction", "BigFraction" (make them "ValJO")
  * Class "Quaternion"

To be reviewed (cf. JIRA) for ensuring API stability:
  * Module "gamma"
  * Module "combinatorics"
  * Module "primes"

Volunteers?

I'm OK with releasing with an "experimental" prefix (all packages
under "org.apache.commons.numbers.experimental"); do we agree that
JAR hell is allowed in those (i.e. non need to have "experimental2",
"experimental3" when BC is broken)?

Gilles

On Fri, 11 May 2018 02:35:40 +0200, Gilles wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2018 18:08:13 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Gilles 
>> <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 May 2018 08:22:40 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>> How about releasing as "beta" i.e. 1.0-beta1?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would not reflect the real status.
>>> As noted below, "Complex" is past beta,
>>
>>
>> Great.
>>
>>
>>> while some of the
>>> other codes need review and/or a little work to settle
>>> known issues.
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like a Beta.
>
> To me "beta" sounds: "No _known_ issues".
>
>>>
>>> Furthermore, I recall that no beta release of a Commons
>>> project ever elicited any feedback.
>>>
>>
>> So what? Getting a jar out on Maven central will give at least the 
>> that
>> opportunity.
>
> Experience tells otherwise (about "beta" release).
> But for sure, the intent is that the release would get attention
> to the project.
>
>> It's better that realizing that you want some BC breaking
>> changes _after_ a 1.0 is out.
>
> Back to square one: I don't want to release known unfinished
> work (cf. JIRA for pending reviews) but do want to release
> the supposedly stable code.
>
> Does some policy forbid not releasing some parts of the project?
> [Technically, it would be a matter of deleting the unselected
> modules from the release branch.]
>
> Gilles
>
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Gilles
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Gilles 
>>>> <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi.
>>>>>
>>>>> The modules in [Numbers] are not all in a releasable state;
>>>>> even if a lot of work has been put in all of them, some
>>>>> need even more to be on a par with e.g. the "Complex" class.
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't seem to serve any purpose to further delay the
>>>>> release as there isn't any activity towards resolving the
>>>>> issues that concerns the other modules.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, I'd like to release "commons-numbers-complex" (without
>>>>> "ComplexUtils") and its dependencies, as well as a few other
>>>>> modules which one would expect can be stable in the long run.
>>>>> Will some people review the modules and afferent issues to
>>>>> give an opinion on those they'd think would be ready for prime
>>>>> time?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Gilles
>>>>>
>>>>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message