commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amey Jadiye <ameyjad...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?
Date Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:02:48 GMT
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Amey Jadiye <ameyjadiye@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Amey.
>
>
> Hi Gilles,
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:45:45 +0530, Amey Jadiye wrote:
>>
>>> Pardon me for pulling this thread up again, I havent read anything about
>>> "Commons Geometry" since long
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your renewed interest.
>>
>> (or may be I missed any other disscussion? ).
>>>
>>
>> Probably not.
>>
>> is someone working on this ?
>>>
>>
>> It would be a surprise.
>>
>> what is the final decision ?
>>>
>>
>> There hasn't been any progress towards a decision.
>>
>
> I'm not sure if "Lazy Consensus" works in these matters ? better take help
> of it, its fast and easy.
>
>
>> There isn't even a consensus on one of the central tenets of
>> Apache ("Those who do the work..."): how sad/strange (?).
>>
>> I'm having good
>>> amount of time to spend on this now, appreciate If someone direct me to
>>> correct disscussion thread
>>>
>>
>> IIRC, the one below is where we left off...
>>
>> I think I can help here.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the offer!
>>
>> It took me half hour to read all old mails but dont see final verdict,
>>> though I was in favour with Maven modules but after reading all again I
>>> think Gilles approch is more practicle here and If no one is working I
>>> can
>>> submit something to review.
>>>
>>
>> IMHO, the priority would be to review the status of "Numbers"
>> (i.e. what is preventing a first release?).
>>
>
> Ok, If commons number is priority let me check that first, I will chime in
> here after that release.
> last numbers release I see on 22/4/17,
>

apologies, that date belongs to site publish and SNAPSHOT, not the alpha
release.

and total open jiras are 18, what are min expectation here ?
> I will open another thread If want advise., let this thread alive for
> o.a.c.geometry.
>
> Regards,
> Amey
>
>
>> Best regards,
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>> Amey
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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