commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@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 02:15:41 GMT
On 24 January 2011 00:16, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Perhaps it does not matter here.

But suppose we release 2.2 and then 3.0, with FastMath @since 2.2.
That works fine, since 3.0 is later than 2.2.

We then release 2.3 with a new class, which is also later added to 3.1.

Do we leave the @since as 2.3?
In that case, users might think it was already in 3.0, which is not the case.

Or do we change it to @since 3.1?

Perhaps 3.0 is special in this regard, as it is the first of the 3.x releases.

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

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


Mime
View raw message