commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Raymond DeCampo <>
Subject Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Date Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:35:29 GMT
Well, as someone with even less time put in than Rob, I'll chime in as well.

First, while I wasn't here for it, it is clear that the fork was traumatic
for the community.  It should be expected there would be a recovery time.
I think a lot of positive steps have been taken and given where the
community was coming from we are not in a bad place now.

IMHO, a TLP would be the best result IF there are enough contributors
supporting it.  The current process of digesting [math] by splitting it
into components that are either easily maintained/understood (e.g.
[numbers]) or adopted by a domain expert (e.g. [rng]) is a good way to
continue moving forward.  If a large enough contingent coalesces around the
new components perhaps a TLP could be formed.

On the other hand if we discover that a small number of components is all
the community needs then maybe [math] becomes dormant and the new
components carry the future.  And that will be fine as well.

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Rob Tompkins <> wrote:

> I suppose that I’ll chime in here. Do pardon my delinquency in responding
> to the list. I tend to be fairly agnostic on these sorts of matters
> because: (1) I have considerably smaller time in the project than most of
> you, and (2) I have a serially agnostic temperament [personal issue :-)].
> So after a year of participation in the project (Commons generally), I’ve
> seen and come to enjoy that development is an extremely lengthy process
> (and I believe for the better because it accommodates all necessary and
> sufficient deliberation). Thus, I tend to take a slow perspective on any of
> these changes realizing that I’m not going to be able to accomplish
> anything short of the long order of weeks (short order of months). With
> that in mind, I ask, what can I do to help [math]? What is “progress”?
> I think we could chip away at a 4.0 or a 3.7 release. I think we could go
> TLP? Either direction contains the same difficulty in that finding
> contributors in this domain is, apparently, quite difficult. Either
> direction requires a relatively prioritized backlog, so that’s been my
> intention thus far. And, further I plan to try to fix some of the bugs.
> As for the philosophy of the matter, I really don’t know what’s best. I do
> think that much of this is because [math] sits squarely in-between a TLP
> and a component that could be used by any application.
> So there. I’ve completely avoided taking an opinion one way or the other
> (agnosticism at it’s best). I’m more in the boat of what can I do right now
> to help.
> Cheers,
> -Rob
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message