Re: [Numbers] "Experimental" release?
Note that strictly speaking, we only publish source code. Binary files like
jar files are only provided as a convenience. Apache Subversion, for
example, leaves binary production and distribution to third parties.
So a "partial release" would mean a "partial release" of sources, as
opposed to a full release of sources and a partial release of binaries. I
am sure you could rejigger the POM and assemblies to produce the a source
zip that would amount to a "partial release." I am not sure it is worth the
complication though, YMMV.
The KISS approach would be to release it all with an alpha or beta label.
You could go as far as repackaging the code with a "0" package name post
fix for an alpha or beta if BC is a real concern.
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 6:02 AM, Gilles <gilles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I only got one response to my previous question about
> a "partial" release of the code currently in [Numbers],
> which was to make a "beta" release.
> I guess that it meant an "experimental" release of
> *everything* even of code with known issues (big or
> The first release would be e.g. version 0.5 and all
> releases below 1.0 could be BC-breaking.
> Then in each release above 1.0, we'd decide which codes
> would be lifted from the "experimental" package.
> Is that correct?
> If not, please state exactly what you'd want to be done
> for getting your vote on a release candidate.
> If we go the "experimental" way, I'd like other useful
> modules to be added to [Numbers]:
> * commons-numbers-rootsolver (with codes from package
> * commons-numbers-quadrature (with codes from package
> * commons-numbers-interpolator (with codes from package
> * commons-numbers-polynomial (with codes from package
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx