commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [math] missing deprecations?
Date Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:55:19 GMT
On 12/15/12 8:50 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 12/15/12 4:07 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:03:14PM -0800, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> The classes in .optimization.fitting seem to have been duplicated /
>>> moved to .fitting, but the originals are not deprecated (though some
>>> methods in them are).  Shouldn't we deprecate the original classes?
>> Yes. In fact, all the classes under "o.a.c.m.optimization" are deprecated;
>> I intended to mark them as such, but somehow got distracted by other
>> things... ;-)
>> Thanks for the reminder.
>>> Also, @since for the moved versions should be 3.1, correct?
>> It depends what is meant by "@since"... Is it the appearance of a new
>> feature (algorithm or data structure), or the actual naming or renaming
>> of a class or method? [There are arguments for each, but both cannot be
>> accomodated with a single tag.]
> Good point.  I would say leave the moved version @since tags as is.
>> In the former case, the answer to your question would be no since it is a
>> only a refactoring of existing features.
>> In the latter, we'd have a problem: many "@since" tags are 1.2, 2.0, ...
>> whereas they should _all_ be 3.0 because of the package name change (from
>> "o.a.c.math" to "o.a.c.math3").
>> Since that had not been a blocker for a major release, I propose that we
>> postpone the resolution of this situation to the next release (opening a
>> JIRA report) or until we are sure how to best use "@since" must be used in
>> CM.
> I need a couple more hours to review and fill in the rest of the
> missing ones.


> Phil
>> Regards,
>> Gilles
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message