Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 01:14:49 +0200
From: Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
To: <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons =?UTF-8?Q?Geometry=22=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <CAF8HOZ+ovC3TwP4PBbdA0H87K-dA=qLtqQObc9BrTApQnYVbGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <715027bee0b4681d76bd15328fad2415@scarlet.be>
 <CAF8HOZJ3VhsgrYtSNx3U1OJFNfcmPCyV==h9L7qxtc+7PpYJ0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <2B12843C-A5E3-4E35-A742-2C11C248AD89@dslextreme.com>
 <506364C0-756B-4728-9D3F-8943BDB141AF@apache.org>
 <3d838fcb88a8a229893ee31e944e4992@scarlet.be>
 <9D35F1FE-5AEA-4467-AD0E-B18102D431F5@dslextreme.com>
 <29a54bea-bdab-f392-c038-f887a69a4412@apache.org>
 <CACZkXPwczHLABcZsJ3V8PrpcL8sgPSKmYOV_rtVaxsRRyyRnnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <36504ef5-f0a2-3fca-7387-0a8e731eef1c@apache.org>
 <100d322176f3ee17cc593416de197546@scarlet.be>
 <4ca06ee7-b8a9-4870-9fb5-89705db066bc@apache.org>
 <66b6010ed7161c4d0360bcf6c9431b25@scarlet.be>
 <e9857b20-f09e-2020-4e89-0d153d721358@apache.org>
 <b0460061f895f3abc75e5faa3773fd2a@scarlet.be>
 <CAF8HOZ+ovC3TwP4PBbdA0H87K-dA=qLtqQObc9BrTApQnYVbGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <926b9044d0f6f28d82947f27f49846e3@scarlet.be>
User-Agent: Scarlet Webmail
X-DCC-scarlet.be-Metrics: hel; whitelist
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1-exp at hel
X-Virus-Status: Clean
archived-at: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:15:03 -0000

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 13:07:24 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Gilles 
> <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
>> Because of "Commons" rules, it is not "equivalent": There was
>> a long thread concluding that all modules must be released
>> _together_, and with the same top-level package name and version
>> number.
>> It is very "maintainer(s)-unfriendly" because of the quite
>> different subject matters that coexist in CM.
>
> I wouldn't count that rule "*all* modules must be released" as a 
> mantra:

I found the idea attractive, but Stian (link to older discussion
in a previous post) advised that maven would not easily "support"
it.

Has that changed since the discussion took place (10 months ago)?

> a) In case of an emergency release (fixing a CVE, for example), I'd
> clearly consider pushing out the module as more important than 
> waiting
> for a full release. (Of course, one must be careful to maintain
> compatibility when pushing out just a module, but that goes without
> saying.)
> b) I'd like to hear others experiences on that topic (maybe VFS).
> Anyways, my personal experiences with Rat are clear: Releasing *all*
> together is causing nothing but pain, and tends to defer releases
> indefinitely. OTOH, releasing a submodule can be done at all times,
> and without overly much preparation.
>
> In conclusion, I'd definitely support the release of a single
> submodule, if the need would arise.

How can one reconcile what you say here with what was said in
that old thread?

Would the PMC accept that a component contains independent modules
(where "independent" means that each module can have its own version
number, irrespective of the component's version)?

Arguably (cf. thread referred to above), a "Commons" component
should be simple enough that multiple versions are not necessary.
[Chorus:] This is not the case with "Commons Math", hence separate
components for independent contents (such as "Geometry", "RNG",
"Numbers" and "SigProc") is the simplest solution.

Gilles

> Jochen


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