commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?
Date Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:41:08 GMT
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.

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
>
>

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