commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles Sadowski <>
Subject Re: [math] MATH-1486 and release 3.6.2
Date Fri, 07 Jun 2019 14:16:14 GMT

Le ven. 7 juin 2019 à 11:54, Stephen Colebourne <> a écrit :
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 23:21, Gilles Sadowski <> wrote:
> > I was about to merge the PR but, on my machine, the build fails.
> > Did you try?
> `mvn clean verify` works for me (maven running on Java 7 and on Java 8).

It doesn't for me:
$ ANT_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/ mvn clean verify
[... skipped...]
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal
(default-compile) on project commons-math3: Compilation failure:
Compilation failure:
[ERROR] Source option 5 is no longer supported. Use 6 or later.
[ERROR] Target option 1.5 is no longer supported. Use 1.6 or later.

That one is easy to fix, but when done, there is another error.
I'm no maven expert...

[We could set up a build on Jenkins.]

> > Back then (pre-fork), I was in favour of maintaining both lines (3.X
> > and 4.X); but the 3.X branch has not been maintained for more than
> > 3 years, and it shows.  Now (post-fork), my opinion is that the effort
> > would be better placed in getting the new dependencies of the
> > development version of Commons Math released, and release CM
> > 4.0 thereafter.
> Its great that there is a plan to move forward. But that doesn't solve
> the key issue here. Commons-Math 3 is used by over 2300 open source
> repos on GitHub [1]. Of course not all are significant projects, but
> some are. While some of those projects may be able to move to
> Commons-Math 4 when it completes, others will not be able to (because
> of their own compatibility constraints). And some of those projects
> may want/need to use Java 9 modules, but can't because Commons-Math 3
> doesn't have a module name. I'm trying to provide a minimum effort way
> for you or another release manager to satisfy that need. I'm very
> definitely NOT trying to fix bugs or maintain the branch - in fact my
> proposed approach is closer to a security patch in scope.

It's how I had understood it, and you are most welcome to
drive such a maintenance/security release.
If the build process works on your machine, you are a better
RM candidate. ;-)


> Stephen
> [1]

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

View raw message