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: [VOTE][RC5] Release Commons Math 3.1
Date Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:58:25 GMT
On 12/21/12 4:09 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Gilles Sadowski <
> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:17:59AM +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
>>> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> Please have a look at the next candidate (RC5), and vote for the
>> release
>>>> of Commons Math 3.1.
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> Tag:
>>>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_3_1_RC5/
>>>> Site:
>>>>   http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/3.1/RC5/
>>>>
>>>> Binaries:
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-052/org/apache/commons/commons-math3/3.1/
>>>> [ ] +1 Release it.
>>>> [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
>>>> [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
>>>> [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
>>>>
>>>> This vote will close in 72 hours.
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this is not yet my vote, just a request for clarification.
>>>
>>> I checked again the Clirr errors, and there are still the two related to
>>> the probability method in LogNormal and NormalDistribution.
>>>
>>> In 3.0, there was a method with only 1 parameter, which always returned
>> 0.
>>> Now there is a probability method with two parameters, which is defined
>> in
>>> the implemented interface AbstractRealDistribution.
>> And... there is a method with one parameter that always return zero in the
>> _parent_ class. Any code the calls the one-arg "probablility" method will
>> get the same result (i.e zero) as before.
>>
>>> You mentioned that this is a false positive, but I doubt this.
>> Why?
>>
>>> Maybe the
>>> probability method was never used,
>> It was not used in CM, but that would not be a good excuse I guess. ;-)
>>
>>> but then it should at least be mentioned
>>> in the release notes.
>> As I indicated previously, if this is a false positive, there is doubtful
>> usefulness to explaining a bug in a reporting tool.
>>
> Hi Gilles,
>
> you are right, sorry I missed the inherited method.

 I think Clirr was not able to handle the fact that in 3.0 the
single-argument version was implemented in these classes.  In 3.1 a
default impl was provided in the parent and these classes dropped
local impls.  So if you just look at the classes Clirr is
complaining about before and after it looks like we just added an
argument.

Phil
>
> So then +1 from my side too.
>
> Thomas
>


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


Mime
View raw message