Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-04-28 Thread Thomas Neidhart
On 04/28/2014 09:34 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 4/28/14, 12:51 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >> Le 28/04/2014 09:41, Thomas Neidhart a écrit : >>> Hi all, >> Hi Thomas, >> >>> whats the status for the 3.3 release? >> >From my side, everything is ready now. >> >>> I would volunteer as RM if there are no

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-04-28 Thread Phil Steitz
On 4/28/14, 12:51 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Le 28/04/2014 09:41, Thomas Neidhart a écrit : >> Hi all, > Hi Thomas, > >> whats the status for the 3.3 release? > >From my side, everything is ready now. > >> I would volunteer as RM if there are no objections. > Great ! Thanks a lot for this. I have t

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-04-28 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Le 28/04/2014 09:41, Thomas Neidhart a écrit : > Hi all, Hi Thomas, > > whats the status for the 3.3 release? >From my side, everything is ready now. > > I would volunteer as RM if there are no objections. Great ! Thanks a lot for this. I have to admit I was little daunted by the task ... b

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-04-28 Thread Thomas Neidhart
Hi all, whats the status for the 3.3 release? I would volunteer as RM if there are no objections. Thomas On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: > On 02/08/2014 06:25 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think we are very close to releasing 3.3. > > Looking through th

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-16 Thread Thomas Neidhart
On 02/08/2014 06:25 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: > Hi, > > I think we are very close to releasing 3.3. > Looking through the issues, the following should/need to be resolved: > > TN (in progress): > > * [MATH-1071] Improve genetic algorithms section in userguide > * [MATH-1061] Improve filter se

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-09 Thread Gilles
On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 23:47:10 +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote: On 02/09/2014 11:39 PM, Gilles wrote: [...] Another thing to be concerned of: right now we have already *3* places in the library where e.g. the GaussNewtonOptimizer resides: * optimization.general * optim.nonlinear.vector.jacobian

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-09 Thread Thomas Neidhart
On 02/09/2014 11:39 PM, Gilles wrote: >> [...] >> >> Another thing to be concerned of: right now we have already *3* places >> in the library where e.g. the GaussNewtonOptimizer resides: >> >> * optimization.general >> * optim.nonlinear.vector.jacobian >> * fitting.leastsquares >> >> two of them

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-09 Thread Gilles
[...] Another thing to be concerned of: right now we have already *3* places in the library where e.g. the GaussNewtonOptimizer resides: * optimization.general * optim.nonlinear.vector.jacobian * fitting.leastsquares two of them deprecated. This is kind of crazy ;-). The ML archive will

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-09 Thread Thomas Neidhart
On 02/09/2014 12:46 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: > On 02/08/2014 10:16 PM, Gilles wrote: >> Hi. >> >>> >>> I think we are very close to releasing 3.3. >>> Looking through the issues, the following should/need to be resolved: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> * [MATH-923] Kohonen's SOFM: can it be considered fin

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-09 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Le 09/02/2014 14:56, Luc Maisonobe a écrit : > Le 09/02/2014 13:26, Thomas Neidhart a écrit : >> On 02/09/2014 12:42 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: >>> On 02/09/2014 12:31 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: Le 09/02/2014 00:40, Thomas Neidhart a écrit : > On 02/08/2014 07:30 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-09 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Le 09/02/2014 13:26, Thomas Neidhart a écrit : > On 02/09/2014 12:42 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: >> On 02/09/2014 12:31 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >>> Le 09/02/2014 00:40, Thomas Neidhart a écrit : On 02/08/2014 07:30 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 2/8/14, 9:25 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: >>

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-09 Thread Thomas Neidhart
On 02/09/2014 12:42 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: > On 02/09/2014 12:31 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >> Le 09/02/2014 00:40, Thomas Neidhart a écrit : >>> On 02/08/2014 07:30 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 2/8/14, 9:25 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: > Hi, > > I think we are very close to releasing

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-09 Thread Thomas Neidhart
On 02/09/2014 12:31 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Le 09/02/2014 00:40, Thomas Neidhart a écrit : >> On 02/08/2014 07:30 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >>> On 2/8/14, 9:25 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: Hi, I think we are very close to releasing 3.3. Looking through the issues, the following sh

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-09 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Le 09/02/2014 00:40, Thomas Neidhart a écrit : > On 02/08/2014 07:30 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 2/8/14, 9:25 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think we are very close to releasing 3.3. >>> Looking through the issues, the following should/need to be resolved: >>> >>> TN (in progress): >

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-08 Thread Thomas Neidhart
On 02/08/2014 10:16 PM, Gilles wrote: > Hi. > >> >> I think we are very close to releasing 3.3. >> Looking through the issues, the following should/need to be resolved: >> >> [...] >> >> * [MATH-923] Kohonen's SOFM: can it be considered finished? > > Done. > >> * [MATH-928] Alternative approac

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-08 Thread Thomas Neidhart
On 02/08/2014 07:30 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 2/8/14, 9:25 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I think we are very close to releasing 3.3. >> Looking through the issues, the following should/need to be resolved: >> >> TN (in progress): >> >> * [MATH-1071] Improve genetic algorithms section i

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-08 Thread Gilles
Hi. I think we are very close to releasing 3.3. Looking through the issues, the following should/need to be resolved: [...] * [MATH-923] Kohonen's SOFM: can it be considered finished? Done. * [MATH-928] Alternative approach to matrix implementations: postpone to 4.0? Done. * [

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-08 Thread Thomas Neidhart
On 02/08/2014 07:43 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 2/8/14, 9:25 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I think we are very close to releasing 3.3. >> Looking through the issues, the following should/need to be resolved: >> >> TN (in progress): >> >> * [MATH-1071] Improve genetic algorithms section i

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-08 Thread Phil Steitz
On 2/8/14, 9:25 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: > Hi, > > I think we are very close to releasing 3.3. > Looking through the issues, the following should/need to be resolved: > > TN (in progress): > > * [MATH-1071] Improve genetic algorithms section in userguide > * [MATH-1061] Improve filter section i

Re: [math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-08 Thread Phil Steitz
On 2/8/14, 9:25 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: > Hi, > > I think we are very close to releasing 3.3. > Looking through the issues, the following should/need to be resolved: > > TN (in progress): > > * [MATH-1071] Improve genetic algorithms section in userguide > * [MATH-1061] Improve filter section i

[math] Release planning for 3.3

2014-02-08 Thread Thomas Neidhart
Hi, I think we are very close to releasing 3.3. Looking through the issues, the following should/need to be resolved: TN (in progress): * [MATH-1071] Improve genetic algorithms section in userguide * [MATH-1061] Improve filter section in userguide * [MATH-749] Convex Hull algorithm: almost fi

Re: [math] Release planning

2008-09-28 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Phil Steitz a écrit : > I just added a 2.1 and moved some issues out. All were enhancement > requests without patches and no assignee. Pls all feel free to revert > any that you feel really need to be in 2.0.I "claimed" a few of the > 2.0 issues. Of course this just means that I will work on

[math] Release planning

2008-09-28 Thread Phil Steitz
I just added a 2.1 and moved some issues out. All were enhancement requests without patches and no assignee. Pls all feel free to revert any that you feel really need to be in 2.0.I "claimed" a few of the 2.0 issues. Of course this just means that I will work on these if no one beats me

Re: [math] Release planning, IOC-friendlyness

2007-12-01 Thread Phil Steitz
> I agree with the DescriptiveStatistics class (except the fact the > serialVersionUID should be uptdated). I think DescriptiveStatisticsImpl > should be deprecated (also the import for ResizableDoubleArray that > remains in this stripped down class is not useful anymore). > Thanks, Luc. I fixed

Re: [math] Release planning, IOC-friendlyness

2007-11-26 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Phil Steitz wrote: On Sep 3, 2007 8:33 AM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/2/07, Luc Maisonobe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2007-05-15, Phil Steitz wrote: I agree. So, probably best is to deprecate the current abstract factories and move to single concrete factories with impl se

Re: [math] Release planning, IOC-friendlyness

2007-11-25 Thread Phil Steitz
On Sep 3, 2007 8:33 AM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/2/07, Luc Maisonobe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2007-05-15, Phil Steitz wrote: > > > > > I agree. So, probably best is to deprecate the current abstract > > > factories and move to single concrete factories with impl sette

Re: [math] Release planning, IOC-friendlyness

2007-09-03 Thread Phil Steitz
On 9/2/07, Luc Maisonobe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2007-05-15, Phil Steitz wrote: > > > I agree. So, probably best is to deprecate the current abstract > > factories and move to single concrete factories with impl setters for > > IOC support. The concrete factories exist already, so it may

Re: [math] Release planning, IOC-friendlyness

2007-09-02 Thread Luc Maisonobe
On 2007-05-15, Phil Steitz wrote: > I agree. So, probably best is to deprecate the current abstract > factories and move to single concrete factories with impl setters for > IOC support. The concrete factories exist already, so it may just be > a matter of deprecation and possibly renaming some