commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Igoe <billi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Math] Not releasing 3.X (Was: Linear Programming in Math [...])
Date Tue, 02 Jan 2018 15:12:35 GMT
Sure,

Would love to incorporate additional statistical routines, time series
analysis and the like.  The underlying code is very stable and adding more
routines would aid in robustness and versatility.

I find myself writing my own. For instance ARIMA is simply a variation of
your MultivariateFunction optimizers.

Bill

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Rob Tompkins <chtompki@gmail.com> wrote:

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