Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Sender: Emmanuel Bourg <emmanuel.bourg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Math] Getting things done
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
References: <CAF8HOZK+guokencndWLSmD69EEvzEtyipMy16E9iS879cEStEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>
Message-ID: <06e5db54-a07a-540d-eb8d-42e7ff1b0a11@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:35:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF8HOZK+guokencndWLSmD69EEvzEtyipMy16E9iS879cEStEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
archived-at: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:35:59 -0000

Le 23/06/2016 à 14:33, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit :

> The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree.
> That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that
> everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In particular,
> there must not be any serious opposition later on. If you'd like to
> oppose: Please do so here, and now.

Thank you for proposing a plan Jochen. I'm certainly in the "I can live
with that" category, but I'm a bit skeptical about the outcome. Neither
the incubator nor a TLP sound viable to me at this point, because the
community around commons-math hasn't recovered from the loss of its
historical contributors. I'd would rather incubate the Math TLP within
Commons until more contributors like Eric join the party.

Because the best way to attract developers is to release something
useful, I'd suggest releasing as soon as possible something derived from
the current Commons Math 4 base:
- commons-random: with the random number generators
- commons-math4: with the core math utilities (fractions, complex,
fastmath, stats, FFT, etc) and leaving out the orphaned parts judged too
specialized like the genetic algorithms.

The core commons-math4 may contain "unsupported" parts as long as they
are properly covered by unit tests and not too specialized.

Does this sound like an acceptable compromise?

Emmanuel Bourg


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