commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [math] Apache Math TLP? [WAS Re: [math] top-level package name]
Date Sat, 23 May 2009 14:59:54 GMT
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Rahul Akolkar a écrit :
>   
>> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> <robertburrelldonkin@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>     
>>> (apologies for jumping in half way through)
>>>
>>> luc.maisonobe@free.fr wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Considering the ongoing discussion in another thread, the current changes
that have been done on
>>>> [math] for the last months belong to the major changes with large incompatibilities
with previous versions.
>>>> We have already decided that the version number will be 2.0 to acknowledge
that. I know of at least one big
>>>> international research project that uses commons-math 1.2 and will switch
to 2.0 when it will be published.
>>>> They have already faced compatibility problems recently (two days ago).
>>>>
>>>> Should we change the top level package name from org.apache.commons.math
to org.apache.commons.math2 ?
>>>>         
>>> why not org.apache.math ;-)
>>>
>>> maybe the time and interest levels are now right to consider a TLP...
>>>
>>>       
>> <snip/>
>>
>> I'd support such a resolution if and when the [math] developers deem it fit.
>>     
>
> This is tempting ...
>
> The pros:
> There is currently some momentum in [math] and several people seem
> interested. There are also several other mathematical projects floating
> around and apparently ready to cooperate. The component is becoming
> quite large by now and its focus slightly shifts away from the rest of
> the commons components.
>
> The cons:
> Maybe the current interest will vanish once 2.0 is out. A top level
> project is probably more administrative work than simply resting in the
> comfort of the commons.
>
> What do other people think ?
>   
Until they kick us out, I say stay here ;)

Somewhat more seriously,  I like staying in commons for three reasons

1) We get good advice, help on administrivia,  and committed committers 
showing up now and then.  This is the core benefit that all commons 
components share.
2) While we are getting some nice "long tail" contributions in the runup 
to 2.0, I don't think we have critical "committed committer" mass to 
maintain a TLP right now.
3) Diffusion and umbrella-ism is a big risk if we go TLP.  While we have 
grown a substantial codebase here, it is still manageable as a single 
maven project, delivering a single, self-contained 100% Java jar.  I 
would like to hold onto that.  I guess it is possible for that to be a 
subproject of a broader umbrella, but I am not personally energized by 
the umbrella idea and I would rather live in a place that is very good 
at managing java components than a new umbrella. 

Of course, this is all your fault, Robert (he he)
(For those not around at the time, Robert created the monster that is 
now [math]....)

Phil
> Luc
>
>   
>> -Rahul
>>
>>
>>     
>>> - robert
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>   


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


Mime
View raw message