commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?
Date Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:43:30 GMT


> On Aug 21, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What about this for a compromise: create Commons Math 5 as a multi-module
> project and bring in as submodules only the newly minted components and
> whatever gets spun out of Math 3/4.

This feels like a good compromise to me. I'm actually surprised were not going this direction
with math 4.  

-Rob

> 
> Gary
> 
> On Aug 21, 2017 13:26, "Dave Brosius" <dbrosius@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>>>> I get that what you are really trying to do is kill Commons Math off
>> piece by piece. I just don’t agree with doing that.
>> 
>> 
>> This is ridiculous. Giles is the primary person trying to keep some
>> semblance of commons-math-like-stuff alive. He has asserted that there is
>> no way he can maintain all of commons-math, and no one else is really all
>> that interested.  Time has proven he is right.
>> 
>> Given he is trying his best to keep code going, and actually the one doing
>> the work, perhaps we should be a little bit less offensive about trying to
>> shut him down.
>> 
>> --dave
>> 
>>> On 08/21/2017 01:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 21, 2017, at 4:39 AM, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:31:55 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am 20.08.2017 um 23:11 schrieb Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have to agree with Jochen and am -1 to this proposal. I have stated
>>>>>> before that I don’t want to see Commons become the placeholder
for all the
>>>>>> Math related components. If Math has stuff that can’t be maintained
then
>>>>>> create a MathLegacy project in the sandbox and move the stuff there.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> I’ve also already argued in that direction.
>>>>> 
>>>> I gave technical arguments in favour of the proposal (cf. first
>>>> post in this thread).
>>>> 
>>>> People opposing it give none.
>>>> A sudden "allergy" of some PMC members to "math"-related code
>>>> does not warrant rejecting non-obsolete code.[1]
>>>> 
>>>> A good start would be to answer this question: Why is it bad (or
>>>> worse than the current situation) to have this "new" component?
>>>> 
>>> Technical arguments are not required since this is basically a
>>> housekeeping issue.
>>> 
>>> I’m not sure why I would answer your last question since you are clearly
>>> going to have a different opinion. But many of us believe that Math is a
>>> great name for a project that contains math subcomponents, rather than
>>> wading through a bunch of different Commons projects. Eventually you are
>>> going to want Commons Statistics, Commons Transforms, Commons Primes, etc.
>>> or things that are even more specific. All of these should be modules under
>>> Math. To be honest, I’m really not clear why Commons Numbers was approved
>>> as I’ve never heard anyone talk about complex numbers or fractions in
>>> anything but a mathematical concept.
>>> 
>>> I get that what you are really trying to do is kill Commons Math off
>>> piece by piece. I just don’t agree with doing that.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> 
>> 

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


Mime
View raw message