commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Math] Changes on the 3.x line
Date Thu, 13 Oct 2016 02:37:20 GMT
On Oct 12, 2016 4:17 PM, "Gilles" <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:44:26 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 12, 2016 3:34 PM, "Gilles" <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 22:48:49 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 12/10/2016 à 18:45, Gilles a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> So, what you say in substance is that you'd rather _wait_ for
>>>>> someone to come by who will want to work with you on 3.x, rather
>>>>> than continue with people, here and now, a work (CM4) that
>>>>> started more than 3 years ago.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, I have no plan to maintain CM 3. I applied a small bug fix
>>>> to CM 4, I just thought it would be nice to backport it if ever a new
CM
>>>> 3 release is required. That's all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That backport served as an example that could lead to a broader
>>> reflection on the future of a project and the "community" around
>>> it; but you ignored it, again, by expressly cutting that part of
>>> my message.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm doing open source mostly for fun, my motivation is to help and make
>>>> something useful to others, and if a fixed CM 3 makes someone happy,
>>>> then so am I.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am sad that those one-shots gives the false impression that
>>> CM3 (or CM4) is alive.
>>>
>>> Some people here could have the project to maintain CM3; even
>>> if I'd prefer that they would work on CM4, they are of course
>>> free to decide where they want to contribute.
>>>
>>> However, I find it extremely uneasy that there is no roadmap
>>> whatsoever; only criticism of what I proposed.
>>>
>>> Is that fix worth a CM 3.7 release?
>>> If not, and nobody works towards a release, what did the
>>> reporter actually gain?
>>
>>
>> Sometimes, a user just wants a bug fix in an easy to apply release. The
>> liveliness of the project switches state as soon as the fix is delivered.
>> Release notes can warn that new features are only happening on the master
>> branch. If I get a bug fix I am happy ;-)
>
>
> This is all fine, in "theory". But:
>  * Who is going to _make_ a release for each applied patch?

Speaking here only about 3.x...

Whomever feels like it! :-) We do not have ownership as you well know. I do
not have a need for a patch today and I do not foresee needing one, but I
would certainly not be shy about cutting an RC if I needed one.

>  * Why this fix and not the other ones reported on JIRA?

It's up to the volunteer that steps up, with reasonable feedback from this
peanut gallery :-)

>  * If a release should be considered only after all reported
>    issues have been examined, who is going to do that work?

See above.

>
> Where is the roadmap?

We do not need a roadmap for 3.x fixes IMO.

For 4.x, the answer is the same as it has always been, we discuss on the
ML. How else would it happen? At an Apache conference or meetup I suppose...

Gary
>
> Gilles
>
>
>>
>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the added value of this project if there is no
>>> decision to move forward?
>>> As I indicated a few months ago, the code sits there; and
>>> the more time passes, the less it will attract new
>>> contributors.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gilles
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>

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