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 Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:29:23 GMT
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:56:23 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> On 04/12/2017 02:56 PM, Gilles wrote:
>> Yes; and it is good per se, of course.  Unforunately, it didn't 
>> change
>> the Commons Math issue: it's still unmaintained, and from what I 
>> observe
>> on JIRA, it's not going to improve with time (I said that much one 
>> year
>> ago and I was right, in hindsight).
> Ok, then let's move commons-math to dormant and redirect the users to
> Hipparchus.


Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could?

I sure hope that I'm not the only one here who would not like it.

>> Last time I acted (to request a "git" repository from INFRA), you 
>> (IIRC,
>> pardon me if I'm wrong) complained ;-) that it had not been agreed 
>> upon...
> Wasn't this because you wanted to create a new component before
> considering other options like creating a submodule of an existing
> component?

Modularization is the solution to a different problem.

In this case, it would not make CM more supported (since the PMC
would not be agree to exclude part of the code from the release).

>> Moreover, the lack of interest shown by the PMC
>> is a worrying indication that any further work can be doomed to not 
>> get the
>> minimal support for an official release, even if there would be no
>> "technical reason"[4] to prevent such release.
> I wouldn't worry about that, even if few members are actively
> contributing to the code there are enough people ready to review and
> vote on the releases.

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.

>> [1] It's the right size and scope: I now agree with the PMC members 
>> who
>>     did not see it useful to have its current modules as separate
>>     components.
> Good, and it could be the same with CM for the parts that may not fit
> well in a separate component.

It's not the same (cf. above).

"Commons RNG" made several modules of related stuff ("focused" scope)
out of a subset of 2 CM packages (initially).

CM is not focused; it's a mixed bag of different
  * subject domains,
  * designs,
  * performances.

It suffers from the same problems which "Lang" started to see (and
that led to the creation of "Commons Text") just a lot worse, because
it is bigger.


>> [5] As usual, sorry for the long email, but trying to keep messages
>>     short does not seem to help either in conveying correctly what I
>>     perceive as a need for PMC action...
> Thanks!
> Emmanuel Bourg

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

View raw message