commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <>
Subject Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
Date Thu, 04 Aug 2016 20:09:21 GMT
Are you waiting on an answer before reviewing and/or merging his pull requests?


> On Aug 4, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Gilles <> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:13:26 -0400, Artem Barger wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Ralph Goers <>
>> wrote:
>>> > All I'm saying this is one of the problems within CM, ​which IMO only
>>> > symptom for more acute problem of missing community. Also as you can see
>>> in
>>> > ML archive I've tried several times to rise discussion around work I'm
>>> > doing and also asked for PR review.
>>> > And to be precise, right now the someone to apply is Gilles only, as far
>>> as
>>> > I'm getting situation correctly.
>>> Any Commons committer can apply the patch. But to be honest, unless the
>>> patch is somewhat obvious or is in a part of the code Gilles isn’t familiar
>>> with, I would expect most everyone would wait for Gilles blessing.
>> ​So if almost everyone supposed to wait until Gilles will accept it, why
>> Gilles initiatives of how project should be divided into separate
>> independent modules could not be accepted? I mean what should happen
>> effectively, to move things forward?  I was using CM for implementation of
>> different parts of my thesis work and I couldn't imagine to myself that
>> proposing improvements or new things related to CM base code will be so
>> hard.
> From reading this thread, it seems that people forgot (or did not
> read the whole story from when were informed of the fork) that the
> Commons Math team was reduced by more than 85% in a very short time
> span. [Without any prior warning or attempt to resolve conflicts
> (archives are proofs of that).]
> I had made a summary of the situation:
> <>
> After all the discussions, we eventually are back at square one: What
> could be done previously with 5 or 6 long-time maintainers (and code
> creators), all PMC members, and 2 or 3 additional team members, cannot
> be done by me alone.   But PMC people continue to state that I am the
> one to do the work (review contributions, "bless" them; from there,
> nominate people, "grow a community", and in the mean time, apply all
> the patches).
> If this is indeed the case, then as Artem states pointedly, why can't
> I *also* decide what is best for this embryo of a new community of
> contributors?
> Again, nobody answered a simple question:  Why not create as many
> components as any PMC member would fancy, and see how they fare in
> the world of modules at large, rather than have non-contributors guess
> at, or "feel", what is a good component?
> As I stated many times, this IMO seems a contradiction with the "those
> who do the work get to decide" purported Apache/Commons policy...
> I'm willing to try avoiding what I deems where CM management mistakes.
> I refuse to work under the old model.
> If this PMC refuses to consider the experiment, it should be suggesting
> alternatives (e.g. someone else willing to step forward and work under
> the old model) or acknowledge that *it* (and not me) prefers to see the
> CM code rot.
> Regards,
> Gilles
>> Best regards,
>>                      Artem Barger.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <>

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message