commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <>
Subject Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2017 05:38:06 GMT
I don’t know why you are ignoring option 3, which is what many have suggested many times.
3) Modify CM to be a multi-module project that contains only the modules you want to support.


> On Dec 3, 2017, at 4:51 AM, Gilles <> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:18:18 +0100, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Gilles <> wrote:
>>> There hasn't been any progress towards a decision.
>>> There isn't even a consensus on one of the central tenets of
>>> Apache ("Those who do the work..."): how sad/strange (?).
>> Those who do the work are welcome to decide on their own, if they do
>> not involve others.
> The conditional is not part of the well-known mantra.
> The issue here is to answer the question of what to do with
> a non-trivial code base.  My stance is to try and fix the
> problem(s), a.o. difficult management, by rooting out its
> main cause: CM has become an aggregate of components with
> completely different subject matters, scopes, designs,
> efficiencies, provisions for extension, etc.
> [An array of issues which "maven" modules will not solve.]
> We are seemingly faced with a choice between:
> 1. Maintain CM as the huge library that it is now.
> 2. Incrementally create maintainable components.
> A long time has passed since these alternatives were first
> exposed, only proving that none of the people who informally
> chose option(1) invested work to make it a reality.
> Refusing option (2) not only "involves others"; it is harming
> them (very real people, having done a lot of work here, on
> that code base).
>> Establishing a new commons component doesn't
>> qualify, IMO.
> True; that's why we are stalled, despite that a majority
> of the PMC did not explicitly oppose option (2).
> A handful of PMC people prefer to let the code base become
> "dormant" rather than give any chance to an alternate view.
> [If, say, you looked at the "Commons RNG" project, and
> concluded that, decidedly, this is not how a component
> should look like, then I could perhaps fathom out where
> those reservations come from.]
> Gilles
>> Jochen
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message