Seems to me that a more distributed change control system like git would
allow would-be contributors to put their code up for scrutiny without
having to create sandbox projects and the like.
If enough people get behind some patches, they could iterate faster and get
it checked into the mainline fa
Didn't come through when published or locally?
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013, Matt Benson wrote:
> Argh, followed instructions at
> http://commons.apache.org/site-publish.htmlas far as I can tell, but
> [weaver]'s modules didn't come through. Do I
> need to set the commons.scmPubUrl property for
Interestingly, after making this change and publishing the website, it
doesn't seem to be working for [weaver]. :/
Matt
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:09 PM, wrote:
> Author: mbenson
> Date: Thu Aug 22 01:09:46 2013
> New Revision: 1516350
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1516350
> Log:
> CMS commi
Maybe have a look at all redirect in .htaccess file :-)
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/cms-site/trunk/content/resources/.htaccess
On 22 August 2013 09:20, Matt Benson wrote:
> Notwithstanding the fact that we would have to redeploy all the component
> sites, wouldn't our URLs look bette
Argh, followed instructions at
http://commons.apache.org/site-publish.htmlas far as I can tell, but
[weaver]'s modules didn't come through. Do I
need to set the commons.scmPubUrl property for each module perhaps?
Matt
Notwithstanding the fact that we would have to redeploy all the component
sites, wouldn't our URLs look better if we used the unadorned
commons.componentid? e.g.
http://commons.apache.org/proper/lang
http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/weaver
etc. ?
Matt
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:15 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:07:51 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Hello,
"but those who propose it must be ready to perform a _committer_
work"
I wonder if this is correct, this is after all (a somewhat annoyingly
broad) discussion list.
You seem to answer that below ("nobody can expect such draft
Hello,
"but those who propose it must be ready to perform a _committer_ work"
I wonder if this is correct, this is after all (a somewhat annoyingly broad)
discussion list. If somebody suggest a new API/Structure and backs it up even
with some working proof of concept code (which better explains
Hi.
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:23:52 + (UTC), Evan Ward (JIRA) wrote:
Evan Ward created MATH-1024:
---
Summary: LU and QR have different default singularity
thresholds
Key: MATH-1024
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:42:09 -0700, Ajo Fod wrote:
Good for you...
Yes just imagine if I'd to get every fix through committers. I'd
never get
anything done here.
Not every fix; commit to start with one.
I've spent a _lot_ of time detailing what you could do to go forward
with the issues whic
+1
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:42, Ajo Fod wrote:
>
> I hope you'll agree that as it stands, this makes CM capable of only
> solving a subset the mathematical problems of what it can solve with a more
> open policy.
>
> The argument for alternative designs of the API is great to
Good for you...
Yes just imagine if I'd to get every fix through committers. I'd never get
anything done here.
> On the subject of this thread: I did not imply that an "experimental"
> package would allow sloppy or undocumented code or bypass unit testing.
> All (the above) things being equal, t
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> But what is returned by the iterator is arrays and there is no
> "arithmetic" going on. One thing I did think of was cutting out the
> binomial coefficients from "ArithmeticUtils" and creating a
> Combinatorics or CombinatoricsUtils class wi
Before someone spend time rewriting the whole package, wouldn't we want the
ability to comment on a skeleton design that might not pass unit tests?
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013, Gilles wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:55:51 -0700, Ajo Fod wrote:
>
>> I agree that in general test are necessary to en
On 21 August 2013 09:48, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> If you are using Eclipse you can use conditional breakpoints for debug
> logging.
> Simply write to System.err and then return false in the break point
> condition.
> Works pretty well for simple debug messages.
Thanks, I'll give that a try.
If you are using Eclipse you can use conditional breakpoints for debug
logging.
Simply write to System.err and then return false in the break point
condition.
Works pretty well for simple debug messages.
2013/8/21
> Author: sebb
> Date: Wed Aug 21 08:43:40 2013
> New Revision: 1516112
>
> URL:
On 21 August 2013 07:58, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> 2013/8/19 sebb
>
>> The Groovy version used by JCI is very out of date.
>>
>> I've updated it to the most recent of the 1.7 series, but since then
>> there has been 1.8 and 2.0, as well as 2.1.x which is the current
>> series.
>>
>> Should JCI up
17 matches
Mail list logo
