commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Bourg <>
Subject Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?
Date Tue, 05 Sep 2017 12:33:55 GMT
Le 4/09/2017 à 15:30, Gilles a écrit :

> I see it as a fundamental one: Why should codes unrelated
> by scope be artificially tied together by management rules
> (such as design, supported language version, release schedule,
> etc.)?[1]

Because they share the same general scope of being math related. The
design and the supported language version can be different for each module.

> Why do you "prefer" multi-module, independently of the subject
> matters being talked about?

I already explained twice in this thread.

> Please comment on my suggestion to create a single maven project
> for the whole of "Commons".  I'd agree that this suggestion is
> ridiculous; yet some of you do the same proposal for "everything
> math-related".

If you want to use an absurd proposal to prove your point let me try
that game too: Please comment on my suggestion to create multiple
components out of every Java package defined in the Commons components.

> If you had been contributing to the math codes (plural), you
> perhaps would have understood that it creates more management
> problems than it solves.[4]

Please use foot references for external links only, your messages are
unreadable if we have to go back and forth to understand them.

> Again, I have to stress on what happened that led me to propose
> a new "Commons RNG": obvious improvements to the CM code base
> were outrightly rejected based on demonstrably false statements;
> i.e. the objections were not technical but for the convenience
> of one user.

I still think that splitting RNG into its own component was a good move.
I'm less happy with Numbers, I'd have preferred a module from a
renovated "CM5" project started from scratch as I'm suggesting now for

> Do you think that I enjoy contradicting you on these matters?

I'm starting to think that you enjoy rhetoric, probably more than
seeking compromise unfortunately.

> Do they want to implement another plan?  What plan?

Here is my counter-proposal:

1. Refactor Commons Math as a multi-module project, bump to version 5
2. Create two modules: geometry and legacy
3. Release Commons Math 5, without the legacy module
4. Spin-off new modules from the legacy module when needed

And I'm willing to help at least for the steps 1 and 2.

Emmanuel Bourg

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message