Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Looks like we are - at last - ready to cut 2.0. All that remains is
1) resolve MATH-260 and MATH-261 (which I am +1 as marking fixed, based
on Luc's last changes)
+1
Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
> Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>> Looks like we are - at last - ready to cut 2.0. All that remains is
>>>
>>> 1) resolve MATH-260 and MATH-261 (which I am +1 as marking fixed, based
>>> on Luc's last changes)
>> +1
>>
>>> 2) push remaining unschedule
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Luc Maisonobe
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>
>>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>
>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
How about we
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>
>>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>
>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>
>>
> How about we use the changes plu
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
How about we use the changes plugin to generate a text file and then
edit and commit as RELEASE-NOTES.txt.
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>
>>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>
Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>> How about we use the changes plugin to generate a text file and then
>>> edit and commit as RELEASE-NOTES.txt.
>>>
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
How about we use the changes plugin to generate a text file and then
edit and commit as RELEASE-NOTES.txt.
I will try to do it tomorrow
I adde
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>
> How about we use the changes plugin to generate a text file and then
> edit and commit as RELEASE-NOTES.txt.
>
I will try to do it tomorrow
>>> I added a velocity template a
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Phil Steitz a écrit :
How about we use the changes plugin to generate a text file and then
edit and commit as RELEASE-NOTES.txt.
I will try to do it tomorrow
I added a velocity template and directed the changes plugin to use it.
mvn changes:anno
Phil Steitz a écrit :
>
>>> How about we use the changes plugin to generate a text file and then
>>> edit and commit as RELEASE-NOTES.txt.
>>>
>>
>> I will try to do it tomorrow
>>
>>
> I added a velocity template and directed the changes plugin to use it.
> mvn changes:announcement-genera
How about we use the changes plugin to generate a text file and then
edit and commit as RELEASE-NOTES.txt.
I will try to do it tomorrow
I added a velocity template and directed the changes plugin to use it.
mvn changes:announcement-generate
mv target/announcement/math-release-notes
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
>>
>>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>>
Looks like we are - at last - ready to cut 2.0. All that remains is
1) resolve MATH-260 and MATH-261 (which I am +1 as marking fixed,
based
on Luc's last change
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
Phil Steitz a écrit :
Looks like we are - at last - ready to cut 2.0. All that remains is
1) resolve MATH-260 and MATH-261 (which I am +1 as marking fixed, based
on Luc's last changes)
+1
2) push remaining unscheduled issu
Never mind my vote for releasing with a bug. That is the best solution!
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> I got it! It now seems to me the problem was numerical instability, not
> an error in the equations or implementation. Step size growth should be
> very slow for these
Resolving these with warnings and a bug against 2.1 to improve accuracy
seems like a good option. It prevents API changes in 2.1
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> >
> > I will do the RM-ing if no one else wants to but would appreciate help
> > in writing a summary of API ch
Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> Looks like we are - at last - ready to cut 2.0. All that remains is
>>
>> 1) resolve MATH-260 and MATH-261 (which I am +1 as marking fixed, based
>> on Luc's last changes)
>
> +1
>
>> 2) push remaining unscheduled issues to 2.1
>
> Concernin
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Looks like we are - at last - ready to cut 2.0. All that remains is
>
> 1) resolve MATH-260 and MATH-261 (which I am +1 as marking fixed, based
> on Luc's last changes)
+1
> 2) push remaining unscheduled issues to 2.1
Concerning MATH-268 I would consider closing it w
Looks like we are - at last - ready to cut 2.0. All that remains is
1) resolve MATH-260 and MATH-261 (which I am +1 as marking fixed, based
on Luc's last changes)
2) push remaining unscheduled issues to 2.1
3) generate clirr report
4) enhance the maven-changes-report to create proper rele
I should probably put this comment onto the issue itself, but for very large
values of lambda, the sampled count becomes very close to Gaussian which
would imply that there are very simple rejection algorithms based on
standard techniques such as sampling from the normal or Lorentzian and
rejecting
Brent Worden wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
I will look at MATH-197 if Brent does not catch this.
Thanks for nudging me to actually contribute something. :)
I added a rejection method for Poisson random variables. As Luc
mentioned in the issue, the original approach experienced numerical
inst
Phil Steitz wrote:
I will look at MATH-197 if Brent does not catch this.
Thanks for nudging me to actually contribute something. :)
I added a rejection method for Poisson random variables. As Luc
mentioned in the issue, the original approach experienced numerical
instability for larger me
sebb wrote:
On 05/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
sebb wrote:
The code already uses some 1.5 features, e.g. enum and autoboxing. It
also already uses parameterized types, just not everywhere. I think
it's too late for compile-time compatibility with 1.4.
That is not what I mean
On 05/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > The code already uses some 1.5 features, e.g. enum and autoboxing. It
> > also already uses parameterized types, just not everywhere. I think
> > it's too late for compile-time compatibility with 1.4.
> >
> >
> That is not what I meant. I mea
On 05/04/2009, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> sebb a écrit :
>
> > On 05/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> sebb wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 04/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> sebb wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 04/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
sebb wrote:
The code already uses some 1.5 features, e.g. enum and autoboxing. It
also already uses parameterized types, just not everywhere. I think
it's too late for compile-time compatibility with 1.4.
That is not what I meant. I meant that I want the upgrade to involve
the least possible
sebb a écrit :
> On 05/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>
>>>
sebb wrote:
> On 04/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
On 05/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 04/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> >
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 04/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
sebb wrote:
On 04/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 04/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Hello,
A lot of work has been done on [math] last months.
There are 9 issues still open in Jira with a target set to 2.0. Some
of
On 04/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 04/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > A lot of work has been done on [math] last months.
> > > > There are 9 issues still open in Jira with a target set to 2.0. So
sebb wrote:
On 04/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Hello,
A lot of work has been done on [math] last months.
There are 9 issues still open in Jira with a target set to 2.0. Some of
them have already been almost processed, some could be finished soon,
some could be pos
On 04/04/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > A lot of work has been done on [math] last months.
> > There are 9 issues still open in Jira with a target set to 2.0. Some of
> > them have already been almost processed, some could be finished soon,
> > some could be p
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Hello,
A lot of work has been done on [math] last months.
There are 9 issues still open in Jira with a target set to 2.0. Some of
them have already been almost processed, some could be finished soon,
some could be postponed to 2.1.
What do you think about preparing to relea
Hello,
A lot of work has been done on [math] last months.
There are 9 issues still open in Jira with a target set to 2.0. Some of
them have already been almost processed, some could be finished soon,
some could be postponed to 2.1.
What do you think about preparing to release 2.0 in the next few
35 matches
Mail list logo
