commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <>
Subject Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?
Date Thu, 31 Aug 2017 21:33:59 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:53:56 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 30/08/2017 à 22:14, Gilles a écrit :
>> -1 to asking others to do one's work.[1]
> So whatever the others think you don't care? If the quantity of work 
> is
> important to you then you should be happy with a multi-module project
> since it induces significantly less work than multiple components:
> - one source repository
> - one JIRA setup
> - one site to manage
> - less release votes
> - less hair-pulling about defining component scopes
> - more flexibility to rearrange code between modules
> I thought you already realized that when you eventually agreed to 
> pick
> this strategy for RNG instead of creating more components.
> Emmanuel Bourg


If you are a "nice guy" (as you once wrote on this ML), then
maybe we've got a "media" problem; it's a pity we cannot meet
in person to sort all those issues, to which I've brought
answers upon answers, several times over (really it's all in
the archive).
[It reminds me that I had to meet the key developer of CM to
have him realize how absurd it was to advocate for checked
exceptions the way he did, whatever arguments I had been
exposing for weeks on the ML.]

You don't seem to get, and neither did the former core team
of CM, that _everybody_ (thus "me too") is entitled to his
opinion; if there are several opinions, then IMHO we must try
to satisfy all the actual _contributors_, if they are willing
to work toward whatever their opinion leads them to. To make
it short and to the point: if you want CM modules, then start
modularizing it.
I'm not against you modularizing CM, I'm against me doing it
just because you "think" it's a better approach to the
(management) problems which I've been describing for at least
two years (and some more).
I've tried to convince people reading this list that some
management mistakes (IMHO) were made; and I showed how I'd
do actual work to try and fix them.
After the "Commons RNG" experience, I'm even more convinced
(and waiting for you to prove otherwise) that _some_ of the
CM codes deserve their own components.
[From here we get back to the initial post of this thread...]
The rest of CM should certainly be modularized (at some point),
but it should also be fixed (at some point), and this will take
a lot of time because CM is such a mixed bag of implementation
designs, pending bugs, dangling refactorings, outdated syntax,

IMO, prioritizing that work is the job of an active PMC.
In order to continue RERO'ing "math"-related code, we must
create new components.  I thought that "Commons RNG" had made
that obvious. [It does seem that some of the PMC members had now
become more accepting of this view.]


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

View raw message