commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@bpm-inspire.com>
Subject Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Date Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:31:17 GMT
Hi Oliver,

Oliver Heger wrote:

> Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
>>>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could?
>>>
>>> If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
>>> recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
>>> commons-math, has the same license and an open development process.
>> 
>> The issue here is that an "in-house" solution has been proposed,
>> based on time-consuming work on the part of developers still
>> contributing here.
>> The PMC members should logically (?) favour any proper endeavour
>> that attempts to keep _this_ community alive.
>> 
>> For functionality that requires expertise not existing anymore around
>> here, it would be fine though, of course.
>> Thus I ask that we make a list of such functionality before dismissing
>> the local goodwill as if it didn't exist.
>> 
>>> The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is people voting
>>> on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
>>> incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed code, the
>>> vote will be a non-issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>> How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an awful lot
>>>> of votes; and that is for components that do not raise objections about
>>>> their mere existence.
>>>
>>> Give it a try?
>> 
>> OK for small, focused, components?
> 
> I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
> 
> I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical components
> extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are small
> and focused. It would seem strange if you opened the Commons Web site
> and about half of the components were math-related. If this is the goal,
> I would prefer to start again the top-level-project discussion.

Then let's continue with it unless we *have* a significant number of 
components. If those attract in completion enough contributors/committers, 
we can again try to form a TLP and donate all of them. IMHO the creation of 
RNG and Numbers was healthy to our ecosystem, therefore I don't see a reason 
to stop with the separation of more component out of Math now.

Cheers,
Jörg


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


Mime
View raw message