commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] [math] top-level package name
Date Sun, 24 May 2009 23:02:17 GMT
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.

Niall

> Phil
>>
>> Hen
>>

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


Mime
View raw message