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 Mon, 17 Apr 2017 22:32:16 GMT
Hi Ralph.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:55:49 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Gilles,
> What is your vision on where things should end up?  Can you identify
> what new commons sub-projects we will have?  If it is just 3 or 4 I
> have no problem with that.

We have
  * RNG

We will have
  * Numbers

We might have
  * SigProc
  * Clustering

> But if we are going to have 10 sub-projects
> then I really feel like it should be done as:
> A:  Commons Math with Commons Math RNG, Commons Math Numbers, Commons
> Math XXX, etc.

Do you mean a modularized "Commons Math"?
If so, my opinion is that it is not feasible at this point.

> B: Math TLP with RNG, Numbers, XXX, etc.

Also not feasible at this point:
1. There are too few developers to support all of the code in
    "Commons Math", and I've the feeling that there won't be enough
    volunteers to help this TLP. [cf. James Carman's offer that had
    been turned down by the PMC.]
2. The amount of code that is supported by the current team is so
    small that "Commons" is the perfect home for these few new

> I have a few reasons for feeling this way:
> 	1. Although you seem to disagree, these components do seem to be
> related in that they all have something to do with Mathematical
> concepts.

It's hard to deny that, but the same goes for other components
that don't seem to trouble anyone (RDF, Compress, Crypto, Functor).

> 	2. It is easier for users to find if they are all grouped together.

By the same token, why not group all of "Commons" in a single
maven project?  Doesn't make sense?  Then it also does not make
sense to group things under the sole "math" category: it's just
too broad and does not help users discover whether there is
something fit for them.

> That said, all of this is just housekeeping and can be addressed at
> almost any time.

As Ray also pointed out: we can decide later to group tools
if it would make sense from a management POV.

> If you want to create a new Commons component you
> can create a new git repo any time you want to.


> The only time you
> really need to ask for permission from the PMC is when you want to
> integrate it into the Commons home page.

Obviously, this work aims at that. [Otherwise, why bother?]

So, what does the PMC say?

> Of course, you should seek
> consensus from your fellow Math developers but if you make a repo and
> populate it I am sure that others will go along if they can see that
> what you have done is a good idea.

That's what I did with "Commons RNG".

> I keep getting the impression that you believe people are standing in
> your way. They aren’t. If you start a discussion you should expect
> people to weigh in. Just because they disagree doesn’t mean they are
> going to stop you. But if you don’t listen to their opinion don’t
> expect to get much help either.

Let's not reverse the roles, please?
Did you read that thread:

Before I ended up being insulted, I helped with "Commons Math"
for an _extended_ period of time despite my long time disagreement
with the management of the codebase.
I spent considerable time doing "consensus" things even when my
opinion had been that they were useless (and proven so, later on).
So, not only did I listen, but I did much more than "listen"...


> Ralph

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

View raw message