commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [math] releasing 3.5 ?
Date Fri, 10 Apr 2015 19:55:13 GMT
I am all for Release Early Release Often.

Gary

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Luc Maisonobe <luc@spaceroots.org> wrote:

> Le 10/04/2015 20:28, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> > On 4/9/15 10:08 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> >> On 04/09/2015 05:50 PM, Gilles wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 17:44:08 +0200, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> >>>> On 04/09/2015 11:20 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Trying to get back on work, after a while ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have just fixed a very annoying (and difficult to reproduce) bug
> >>>>> concerning BSP trees in 3.4.1. As I am on it, I will also try to
> >>>>> fix MATH-1211 created recently.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The bug I fixed is really important as it breaks some other tools,
> >>>>> so I would need to release the fix officially as soon as possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Therefore, I would like to publish a version 3.5 in the next few
> days.
> >>>>> Of course, I will do the release management hurdle. What do you
> >>>>> think about it?
> >>>> I see only one actual feature being added to 3.5 so far (the
> additional
> >>>> method introduced to Descriptive and SummaryStatistics).
> >>>>
> >>>> We could copy the current 3_X branch to a 3_4_X branch and remove this
> >>>> specific feature to really release a pure bugfix release for the 3.4
> >>>> branch.
> >>> Alternatively, we could leave it (and I should add another similar
> before
> >>> release)...
> >>> Is there a practical reason that needs preserving the 3.5 option?
> >> not really imho, but it would be quite unusual for math to release
> >> another minor release so quickly (and almost entirely consisting of
> >> bugfixes).
> >
> > I would be big +1 to try to break out of the slow release train and
> > allow ourselves to cut 3.5, 3.6, .... quickly.  Before I commit a
> > fix for MATH-1213 though, can we agree with what we are about to cut
> > is 3.5?
>
> Yes!
>
> As another push in this direction, I will also add a new feature myself
> for polyhedrons, inspired from the last test.
>
> Luc
>
> >
> > Phil
> >>
> >> Thomas
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

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