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 (nike.apache.org: domain of phil.steitz@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.210.43 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <513CC2C6.2020109@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:28:38 -0700
From: Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [math] releasing 3.2?
References: <51349281.6030705@spaceroots.org>
In-Reply-To: <51349281.6030705@spaceroots.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 3/4/13 4:24 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to release version 3.2 of [math] soon.
> Any thoughts about it?
>
> Luc
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
I am sorry I have been very busy recently.  I have a half-finished
comment on ExtendedFieldElement additions.  The gist of it is do we
need all of the added stuff actually in the interface.  At first, I
thought this was just adding exponential field and partial algebraic
closure, which makes "ExtendedFieldElement" an OK name.  But all of
the added methods really make it more like "RealFieldElement" or
somesuch. The real question is do we really want to add all of the
methods in the interface.  Since we are about to cut a release, we
should take a careful look at this.  Sorry to take so long to review.

Phil

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