Release?

[Luigi Ballabio-2]

Hi all,
        this looks to me like a good time to branch out 0.3.4---a few  
bugs were fixed (most notably, the library works again with Borland)  
and a few features added. The current code would nicely qualify as a  
semi-stable, bug-fix release which people could rely on while we go  
ahead and break the world (or start using boost, or flatten namespaces,  
or generally start some new development.)

In short, if there are no objections, I would create the 0.3.4 branch  
Monday morning. Henceforth, only bug fixes would be committed on the  
branch---new developments would go into the trunk and appear in 0.3.5.

Objections? Thoughs?

Later,
        Luigi

[Ferdinando M. Ametrano-3]

Luigi:
>         this looks to me like a good time to branch out 0.3.4---a few
>bugs were fixed (most notably, the library works again with Borland)
>and a few features added.

I would have liked to ask Niels Elken Sønderbys (in CC here) if he would
merge his
SVJD code (http://www.nielses.dk/quantlib/nesquant/) into QuantLib before
the next release. I don't remember if he is already a quantlib-dev
subscriber: if I didn't invite you before Niels, please accept my apologies
and consider this an open invitation.
To add the code should be easy enough, but it would make sense to add a
unit test too.
Of course we might just add SVJD for 0.3.5, especially if the merge+test
take longer than 1 week.
BTW Niels: please consider to actively work on the current CVS, I grant you
we will make it clear what your (master thesis) work consists ;-)

Another thing I would like to have fixed is the broken Borland
documentation. Luigi: I'm sure it will take few minutes of your time ;-)

A 0.3.4 related issue: I would like to remove my personal address
[hidden email] (which I'm going to suspend for a few months due to
excessive spam > 300 messages per day) from the "You should have received a
copy of the license along with this program; if not, please email
[hidden email]" file header. Suggestion about which address could
be used instead? What about [hidden email] ?

>  The current code would nicely qualify as a
>semi-stable, bug-fix release which people could rely on while we go
>ahead and break the world (or start using boost, or flatten namespaces,
>or generally start some new development.)

since you were planning to be backward compatible for one release on
namespace flattening, why don't we do it for 0.3.4?

My 0.2$

ciao -- Nando

[Luigi Ballabio-2]

Hi all,

On 2003.10.31 18:20, Ferdinando Ametrano wrote:
> Luigi:
>>         this looks to me like a good time to branch out 0.3.4---a  
>> few bugs were fixed (most notably, the library works again with  
>> Borland) and a few features added.
>
> I would have liked to ask Niels Elken Sønderbys (in CC here) if he  
> would merge his SVJD code (http://www.nielses.dk/quantlib/nesquant/)  
> into QuantLib before the next release.

I was aware of nesquant, even though I didn't mention it. It looked to  
me as one of the nice things we will include into next release, but not  
into this one as it will probably take a while to integrate it and add  
tests. I was thinking of 0.3.4 as a bug-fix release. Heck, Borland  
users couldn't even _use_ 0.3.3.

> Another thing I would like to have fixed is the broken Borland  
> documentation. Luigi: I'm sure it will take few minutes of your  
> time ;-)

You'll be happy to hear that I now have a new box, and Borland isn't  
even installed yet. "A few minutes" kind of strikes me as an  
underestimate :) That, and the fact that I don't know what's broken.
(and anyway, bug-fixes can be applied to the branch)

> A 0.3.4 related issue: I would like to remove my personal address  
> [hidden email] (which I'm going to suspend for a few months  
> due to excessive spam > 300 messages per day) from the "You should  
> have received a copy of the license along with this program; if not,  
> please email [hidden email]" file header. Suggestion about  
> which address could be used instead? What about quantlib-dev@lists.
> sourceforge.net ?

Ok for me.

>>  The current code would nicely qualify as a
>> semi-stable, bug-fix release which people could rely on while we go
>> ahead and break the world (or start using boost, or flatten  
>> namespaces, or generally start some new development.)
>
> since you were planning to be backward compatible for one release on  
> namespace flattening, why don't we do it for 0.3.4?

Because I have a real work :)
Also, my point was: we could use a bug-fix release, this is a good  
time, let's branch before we break something else.

Later,
        Luigi

[Niels Elken Sønderby]

Hi Ferdinando and others

Sorry for the late reply.

I will deliver my master thesis in less than a month, and after that I'll be
happy to incorporate the code I have developed into the QuantLib CVS. Until
then I'll concentrate on making the report part of the thesis as good as
possible.

As part of the code, I have also made a least-squares Monte Carlo routine,
that I believe is better than the one in americanoption.cpp. It is split up
in a LSMEngine and a PolynomialFit object.

Anyway, I'll check in the code in the CVS, when I have an idle moment.

Ciao... Niels

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ferdinando Ametrano" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Cc: <[hidden email]>; "QuantLib-dev" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Quantlib-dev] Release?


Luigi:
>         this looks to me like a good time to branch out 0.3.4---a few
>bugs were fixed (most notably, the library works again with Borland)
>and a few features added.

I would have liked to ask Niels Elken Sønderbys (in CC here) if he would
merge his
SVJD code (http://www.nielses.dk/quantlib/nesquant/) into QuantLib before
the next release. I don't remember if he is already a quantlib-dev
subscriber: if I didn't invite you before Niels, please accept my apologies
and consider this an open invitation.
To add the code should be easy enough, but it would make sense to add a
unit test too.
Of course we might just add SVJD for 0.3.5, especially if the merge+test
take longer than 1 week.
BTW Niels: please consider to actively work on the current CVS, I grant you
we will make it clear what your (master thesis) work consists ;-)

Another thing I would like to have fixed is the broken Borland
documentation. Luigi: I'm sure it will take few minutes of your time ;-)

A 0.3.4 related issue: I would like to remove my personal address
[hidden email] (which I'm going to suspend for a few months due to
excessive spam > 300 messages per day) from the "You should have received a
copy of the license along with this program; if not, please email
[hidden email]" file header. Suggestion about which address could
be used instead? What about [hidden email] ?

>  The current code would nicely qualify as a
>semi-stable, bug-fix release which people could rely on while we go
>ahead and break the world (or start using boost, or flatten namespaces,
>or generally start some new development.)

since you were planning to be backward compatible for one release on
namespace flattening, why don't we do it for 0.3.4?

My 0.2$

ciao -- Nando