Hi Ralph,
Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 19, 2016, at 10:40 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ralph,
>>
>> Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Eric.
>>>
>>> I am OK with Commons Math being split into modules in the Commons Math
>>> subproject.
>>
>>
>> That was my first idea too. But if the collection of all submodules will
>> in the end nevertheless only contain 20% of the code, we gained nothing.
>>
>>
>>> I am not OK with Commons Math A, Commons Math B, etc existing
>>> within Commons. In other words, when a user traverses to Commons Math
>>> they can then see the modules that make up Commons Math.
>>
>>
>> The main problem seems to be that CM was a dumping ground for all kind of
>> stuff that have at least the slightest relation to a mathematical base.
>>
>> Gilles never expressed it directly, but in its consequence he proposed to
>> move the current CM into dormant/attic and extract single parts of the
>> old code base as new components.
>
> Personally, I don’t think moving it to the attic is appropriate. Projects
> go to the attic, not components. The Math project (or subproject) is
> free to add or drop components as the see fit, so long as it is a
> community decision.
>
>>
>> Some of those components can be:
>>  Commons RNG (Random Number Generators)
>>  Commons Complex (Complex Numbers)
>>  Commons Matrix (Matrix Algebra)
>>
>> Those components might have an own life, those algorithms have a wide
>> audience and can be used in a lot of stuff on its own. The question is
>> what happens with:
>>  Commons Genetics (Genetic Algorithms)
>>  Commons ML (Machine Learning)
>
> If there is a case to be made to move components out of Commons Math to
> become individual Commons components then those proposals should be made
> individually so the merits can be discussed.
And it has to be cleared what it means for CM itself.
> For example, just by its name
> I am not sure why Machine Learning belongs in Math unless it really is
> just a bunch of machine learning algorithms.
It seems so.
>> Or other stuff requiring deep mathematical background. I don't have the
>> impression this belongs as own components into Commons. Moving CM as
>> whole into a new TLP at least provides a place for all of it.
>>
>> The question is, what do we want as PMC members?
>
> I’m not sure I understand the question.
Do we want new individual components here in Commons that have been
extracted from the original CM? Basically this could be done for some code
(targeting a wide audience as explained above), but the rest of the code
will no longer fit even as individual components into the Commons context.
And what are the consequences for CM if we go down that road.
> Once there are enough active
> committers then I would think they would become Math TLP PMC members when
> it is appropriate.
To me this means to keep CM alive as it is (multiproject or not), wait for
a big enough community (in the incubator or here) to claim TLP and the Math
TLP can then act with the code as it likes.
 Jörg

To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
