commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE][RC5] Release Commons Math 3.1
Date Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:09:11 GMT
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.

So then +1 from my side too.

Thomas

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message