commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Barker" <billwbar...@verizon.net>
Subject Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] [math] top-level package name
Date Sun, 24 May 2009 23:44:20 GMT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] [math] top-level package name


On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on
>>>>> [math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
>>>>>
>>>>> [] +1 change the top level package name
>>>>> [] 0 I don't care
>>>>> [] -1 keep the old name
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote open for 72 hours (up to Friday May 19th 20h00 UTC)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Resending the result due to an error: James Carman vote is also a
>>>> binding vote, sorry for the mishap.
>>>>
>>>> This vote has failed with the following tally (marking binding votes
>>>> with *):
>>>>
>>>> +1* Luc Maisonobe
>>>> +1* Henri Yandell
>>>> +1* James Carman
>>>> +1* Brent Worden
>>>> +1 Edward J. Yoon
>>>> +1* Jörg Schaible
>>>> +1 Dimitri Pourbaix (changed from -1 to +1)
>>>>
>>>> +0 Ted Dunning
>>>> +0 Cyril Briquet
>>>>
>>>> -0 Bill Barker
>>>>
>>>> -1 Gilles Sadowski
>>>> -1* Niall Pemberton
>>>> -1* Phil Steitz (changed from +1 to -1)
>>>>
>>> So the top level package name will remain org.apache.commons.math
>>>>
>>>
>>> Heh... now there can be a "keep the package name the same" vote that
>>> also fails :)
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. I have thought about that kind of thing before. Our "veto" rules
>> apply to code *changes* so strictly speaking that VOTE is not necessary.
>> What *could* happen is that enough people could -1 the release to
>> effectively block it.
>>
>> Of course, our way here is to come to agreement and it looks like we have
>> not done that in this case. My original vote (+1) was partly for
>> consistency with the rest of commons and out of fear of "jar hell"
>> scenarios. I was swayed by Niall's argument and reflection on use cases
>> that I am aware of. I am sure Niall as well is open to enlightenment if
>> others can point to practical use cases (observed or likely) involving
>> [math] that demonstrate that the "pain-minimizing" alternative is to 
>> change
>> the package name.
>
>IMO jar-hell is an over used term in this thread and has become
>synonymous with breaking compatibility rather than real jar-hell which
>relates to components widely depended on. I also fear that commons
>marches towards a dictatorial model rather than a more loosely federal
>system that I believe it should be. I threw my -1 into the ring to
>hopefully make people stop to consider what seemed to be becoming an
>inevitability. As a non-Math developer I don't really believe I had
>any business doing so - but since so many other non-Math devs were
>throwing in their +1 votes.... I still don't believe this is a
>necessary step for Math, but if the Math devs want to do this I will
>withdraw my -1.

No, mostly the [math] devs went -1 (I went -0 only because my vote doesn't 
count ;).

>Niall

> Phil
>>
>> Hen
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message