commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <>
Subject Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Date Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:12:20 GMT
Hi Jörg.

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:31:17 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
> Oliver Heger wrote:
>> Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
>>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>>>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather 
>>>>> than
>>>>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it 
>>>>> could?
>>>> If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
>>>> recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
>>>> commons-math, has the same license and an open development 
>>>> process.
>>> The issue here is that an "in-house" solution has been proposed,
>>> based on time-consuming work on the part of developers still
>>> contributing here.
>>> The PMC members should logically (?) favour any proper endeavour
>>> that attempts to keep _this_ community alive.
>>> For functionality that requires expertise not existing anymore 
>>> around
>>> here, it would be fine though, of course.
>>> Thus I ask that we make a list of such functionality before 
>>> dismissing
>>> the local goodwill as if it didn't exist.
>>>> The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is people 
>>>> voting
>>>> on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
>>>> incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed code, 
>>>> the
>>>> vote will be a non-issue.
>>>>> How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an awful 
>>>>> lot
>>>>> of votes; and that is for components that do not raise objections 
>>>>> about
>>>>> their mere existence.
>>>> Give it a try?
>>> OK for small, focused, components?
>> I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
>> I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical 
>> components
>> extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are 
>> small
>> and focused. It would seem strange if you opened the Commons Web 
>> site
>> and about half of the components were math-related. If this is the 
>> goal,
>> I would prefer to start again the top-level-project discussion.
> Then let's continue with it unless we *have* a significant number of
> components. If those attract in completion enough 
> contributors/committers,
> we can again try to form a TLP and donate all of them. IMHO the 
> creation of
> RNG and Numbers was healthy to our ecosystem, therefore I don't see a 
> reason
> to stop with the separation of more component out of Math now.

What a change from the generally overwhelmingly negative tone
of this ML! ;-)

Can we learn something from why it was so hard for long-time
developers to accept even non-destructive changes?

IOW, can we expand on what is "healthy to our ecosystem"?

Thank you,

> Cheers,
> Jörg

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

View raw message