commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Math] Not releasing 3.X (Was: Linear Programming in Math [...])
Date Tue, 02 Jan 2018 14:45:15 GMT
Ok. Was just trying to make a suggestion to think about shooting for incremental changes specifically
with [math] to go along with all of the good work with the other mathematical projects.

-Rob

> On Jan 2, 2018, at 5:43 AM, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello.
> 
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:27:00 -0500, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>>> On Jan 1, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Bill Igoe <billigoe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Gang,
>>> 
>>> I noted a recent exchange on OLS regarding Math Commons.  Thus far I find
>>> the Math Commons working flawlessly.  I am also working on a project for
>>> pure real time financial optimization using the Linear Programming
>>> algorithm of Math commons.  I designed my code to flip between the QSOPT
>>> package and the Math common LP algo to check the robustness and consistency
>>> of  results.   I get exactly same answers in both and that LP is using over
>>> 2000 variables and 3000 constraints!
>> 
>> Many thanks for the encouragement.
>> 
>> All - any thoughts on trying to do a release on [math] is the 3.X
>> branch stable?
> 
> This branch is unsupported; making a new release based on it will
> send the wrong signal and is likely to generate bug reports already
> filed on "master" (with "Fix version" set to 4.0), and sometimes
> fixed there (or in "RNG" or in "Numbers").
> 
> You'd basically scratch almost 3 years of continuous work:
> ---CUT---
> commit e4e1ac23c734f65686be4bc0e503f82f941afd4d
> Author: Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidhart@gmail.com>
> Date:   Mon Feb 16 23:37:23 2015 +0100
> 
>    Update for next development iteration: commons-math4
> ---CUT---
> 
>> Are there any small bug fixes we can do to make small
>> incremental changes and release those?
> 
> Any time spent on back-porting fixes from "master" will be better
> used for advancing towards the release of "Commons Numbers", and
> other components with supported (reviewed and fixed) codes,
> according to the "plan" (cf. ML archive for details).
> Help welcome.
> 
>> 
>> -Rob
>> 
>>> 
>>> Keep up the good work and I am looking forward to the 'split' between
>>> Commons Math and Statistics.
> 
> As outlined in another thread, high-level functionalities with
> positive feedback, like the one referred to here, can be ported
> to a new component, with low-level supporting codes (but possibly
> buggy) being hidden in "internal" packages until they are ported
> (or released) themselves.
> Comments, and help with experimenting, on this approach welcome.
> E.g. the contents of "o.a.c.m.stat.regression" would become a
> module of "Commons Stat".
> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers to you all and have a great 2018
> 
> Thanks and best regards,
> Gilles
> 
>>> 
>>> Bill Igoe
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


Mime
View raw message