commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [math] getting changes included into commons-math (was Re: Home for the colt fork)
Date Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:53:37 GMT
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr>wrote:

> >
> > I have submitted patches for the following tickets: MATH-312 (and
> acceptance
> > of that patch blocks my patch for MATH-314), MATH-316 and MATH-317, none
> > of which have appear to have had much progress on.  All of my patches
> come
> > with unit tests for new functionality.
>
> I had these patches in my backlog and considered them accepted. I should
> have commited them before, sorry for that. I'll take care of them right
> now.
>
> >
> > On the other hand, when I opened the discussion about extending the
> > functions
> > package to enable composable functions (MATH-313), I got an entirely
> hostile
> > response, which only tempered as far as "+0" on adding it after
> discussion.
>
> The discussion was not entirely hostile as we get some intermediate
> consensus at some points. I understand your feelings after several
> patches that did not get committed fast enough.
>
> Please accept my apologizes for this.
>

Luc, looking back over that thread, I should say that no, it was not
entirely
hostile - and we did come to more of a consensus later on (although even
that consensus was given a very lukewarm +0 from Phil).  I apologize for
any implication that I was being treated poorly or unfairly.

It just seems that as Benson says later, that the rate of change of c-math
and
mahout are rather different, and this discussion around those JIRA tickets
simply highlighted what this understanding was.

  -jake

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message