commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1062304 - /commons/proper/math/branches/MATH_2_X/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math/util/FastMath.java
Date Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:16:30 GMT
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:54 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 January 2011 22:18, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:57 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 23 January 2011 09:58, Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr> wrote:
>>>> Le 23/01/2011 01:58, sebb@apache.org a écrit :
>>>>> Author: sebb
>>>>> Date: Sun Jan 23 00:58:07 2011
>>>>> New Revision: 1062304
>>>>>
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1062304&view=rev
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> MATH-496 Create FastMath copySign methods
>>>>
>>>> I was also creating these methods.
>>>> I have created all the missing ones and implemented hypot directly, so
>>>> don't bother doing it too.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> I've mainly been working in Math trunk, and porting back to 2.2, so
>>> I'll add your new methods back to trunk.
>>> I'll also merge my fixes to nextAfter.
>>>
>>> FastMath and FastMathTest should be the same in both.
>>>
>>> Apart from the @since marker in FastMath - perhaps we can use @since
>>> 2.2, 3.0 for that?
>>
>> Should be @since 2.2
>>
>> Lets try to get all the fixes into 2.2.
>
> Yes, indeed. I think we are quite close now.
>
> ==
>
> What I meant was - the class is new for 2.2 and also new for 3.0.
> The class and its test class(es) are currently the same for both
> versions of Math.
>
> We obviously need to put @since 2.2 in the class for the 2.2 release.
> Is that sufficient also for the 3.0 release?

I think so.  As long as we release 2.2 before 3.0.

> Or do we need to put @since 3.0 in it for that?
>
> Strictly speaking it is new to 3.0 too.

I don't understand what you mean by this.  All classes added since 2.1
are in this sense new for 3.0 as well.

>
> So maybe we can put:
>
> @since 2.0
> @since 3.0
>
> or
>
> @since 2.0,3.0
>
> in the (one) copy of the file.
>
> This would be easier than having to fix the @since marker in one of the files.

I am not following you here.  I must be missing something.  To me this
is no different from classes added in 2.0, 2.1, 2.2.  What matters is
when the class is actually released.  There is no harm in the 2.0 and
3.0 versions diverging even in incompatible ways.  The @since tag
tells the version number of first release.  Unless you are thinking
that 3.0 might be released before 2.0?  Or we need to do something
different during the time that neither has been released?  What am I
missing?

Phil

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


Mime
View raw message