Re: [Math] Feature development model

2016-01-06 Thread sebb
On 7 January 2016 at 01:48, Gilles wrote: > On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 18:42:06 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >> >> Le 06/01/2016 15:56, Gilles a écrit : >>> >>> Hi. >>> >>> I've reread this article (which IIRC was advertised on this list some >>> time ago): >>> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-bran

Re: [Math] Feature development model

2016-01-06 Thread Gilles
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 18:42:06 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote: Le 06/01/2016 15:56, Gilles a écrit : Hi. I've reread this article (which IIRC was advertised on this list some time ago): http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ It is quite clear and I think that it would easy to get

Re: [Math] Next version(s)? (Was: [...] Putting MATH_3_X branch to post-release state.)

2016-01-06 Thread Gilles
Hi Luc. On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 18:32:37 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote: Le 06/01/2016 15:19, Gilles a écrit : Hi. Hi Gilles, On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 21:47:52 -, l...@apache.org wrote: Putting MATH_3_X branch to post-release state. This change is only done in case a new release should be done. Th

Re: [Math] Feature development model (Was: big batch of commits coming)

2016-01-06 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Le 06/01/2016 15:56, Gilles a écrit : > Hi. > > I've reread this article (which IIRC was advertised on this list some > time ago): > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ > > It is quite clear and I think that it would easy to get used to. Yes, it is quite a good model. > Un

Re: [Math] Next version(s)? (Was: [...] Putting MATH_3_X branch to post-release state.)

2016-01-06 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Le 06/01/2016 15:19, Gilles a écrit : > Hi. Hi Gilles, > > On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 21:47:52 -, l...@apache.org wrote: >> Putting MATH_3_X branch to post-release state. >> >> This change is only done in case a new release should be done. >> This is however not really expected now and the next rel

[Math] Feature development model (Was: big batch of commits coming)

2016-01-06 Thread Gilles
Hi. I've reread this article (which IIRC was advertised on this list some time ago): http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ It is quite clear and I think that it would easy to get used to. Unless there are shortcomings that would prevent its use with the CM repository, I propo

[Math] Next version(s)? (Was: [...] Putting MATH_3_X branch to post-release state.)

2016-01-06 Thread Gilles
Hi. On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 21:47:52 -, l...@apache.org wrote: Putting MATH_3_X branch to post-release state. This change is only done in case a new release should be done. This is however not really expected now and the next release should rather be 4.0 than 3.7. The latest clash about chang

[math] big batch of commits coming

2016-01-06 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Hi all, As discussed a few weeks ago, I ported the new field-based ode feature from MATH_3_X to master. I was finally able to do that without losing the about hundred commits history, by replaying them with some scripting. In case this is of interest for some of you, here is how I managed to do t

Re: svn commit: r1723311 - /commons/proper/exec/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/exec/issues/Exec65Test.java

2016-01-06 Thread sebb
On 6 January 2016 at 13:10, wrote: > Author: sgoeschl > Date: Wed Jan 6 13:10:09 2016 > New Revision: 1723311 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1723311&view=rev > Log: > [EXEC-65] Add test with plain vanilla "Runtime" usage to show that we can > indeed kill the sleeping process -1 - pl

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Commons Math 3.6 released

2016-01-06 Thread Luc Maisonobe
The Apache Commons Team is pleased to announce the availability of Apache Commons Math 3.6. Apache Commons Math is a library of lightweight, self-contained mathematics and statistics components addressing the most common problems not available in the Java programming language or Commons Lang. Ver