Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of phil.steitz@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.178 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=XYtoLvSfluluIgIjvqjQ5PLMtYiPQVRXBEH9JlSioKQ3rY5qmBZZbXyx+mnUs+3OOp
         tjdb6b8vcghtNXbYsmVPKesw3/NKmmZnIOmhDddOTkienaJQKoLBR095fwje/Vlgs2OG
         5HxzKHV/8YQ0eLl5PPebsKqQHcYsIU/sCK4dk=
Message-ID: <4D611CAC.6020601@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 08:52:44 -0500
From: Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release math 2.2 based on RC1
References: <4D610CBE.6000701@free.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4D610CBE.6000701@free.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2/20/11 7:44 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_2_2_RC1/
>
>
>
Distributions: http://people.apache.org/~luc/math-2.2-RC1/
>
> Maven artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~luc/math-2.2-RC1/maven/
>
> Documentation bundled with the binary distribution:
> http://people.apache.org/~luc/math-2.2-RC1/docs/
>
> Output of maven:site run against the source distribution:
> http://people.apache.org/~luc/math-2.2-RC1/site/
>
> Clirr report:
> http://people.apache.org/~luc/math-2.2-RC1/site/clirr-report.html
>
> Release notes:
> http://people.apache.org/~luc/math-2.2-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
Nice job on this.  Obviously, we need a release :)

I think the following statement, however, needs to be edited somehow:

This release contains some minor compatibility breaks with version
2.1 in some internal classes but none
 of them are in the public API:
 the MessagesResources_fr class has been removed (replaced by a
properties file);
 the arguments of the EventState.reinitializeBegin method have changed;
 some private fields in AbstractStepInterpolator have been replaced.

Technically, all of these things are in the public API, which is why
Clirr complains.  The removed fields were protected, not private and
the other removed things are public.  I think what you mean to say
is that the removed things were not intended for use by [math] users
or something.  Maybe just drop the clause starting with "but
none..."  Or change it to something like "but none of them are in
APIs likely to be accessed by user code."  I don't think we want to
get into the business of informally designating part of the public
API as really "public."  The lesson learned here is that we need to
be more careful about what we put into the public API (public plus
protected classes, methods and fields).

Phil
>
> Votes, please. This vote will close in 72 hours, 2011-02-23T13:00:00
> UTC
>
> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts [ ] +0 OK, but... [ ] -0 OK, but
> really should fix... [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Luc
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
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