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 15:14:00 GMT
Hi Stefan.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:22:23 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> [sorry for the comments from the peanut gallery, I haven't been
> following MATH and likely will never contribute anything substantial]
> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:03:05 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>> What do you expect now that is blocked by the PMC?
>> With "Commons RNG", I think that I showed that the "new, small,
>> focused components" route is the right one.[1]
> I agree.

Thank you!

>> 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...
> The details are escaping me, maybe you need to state your desire to
> break a new piece out of MATH as a separate component first and give
> people time to comment before requesting a repo for it? Alternatively
> start inside the sandbox (I hope nobody has ever stopped anybody from
> creating a sandbox component - but I may certainly have missed it).

There has been much inconclusive discussion (opinion vs opinion) that
only actual work can eventually dispel doubt.
[Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and most
PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening JIRA 
all along.  Hence creating a "git" repository is not futile if it can
raise awareness.]

>> IMO, there is a contradiction in the PMC being both passive (not
>> contributing to the overall health of CM[2]) and active (in 
>> preventing
>> "do-ocracy" wrt the choice of a roadmap for CM[3]).
> You can count myself into the camp of people who are willing to let a
> component go dormant if it doesn't get maintained. But I'm unlikely 
> to
> go actively looking for unmaintained components. Looking at the 
> commits
> of commons-math it seems to get some love from time to time, not 
> enough
> that anybody would want to cut a release, though.

You demonstrate that one's impression can be quite wrong: a _lot_ of
work has been done (since at least 4 years) on the branch that was
bound to become CM 4.0.  I'm inclined to think that it deserves more
than being thrown away.

The problem is that the sheer size of CM make it looks like negligible
quantity, when seen from the peanut gallery. ;-)

> I'm not sure we need a roadmap. IMHO if you can identify a viable 
> subset
> of MATH you want to maintain as a separate component, then you should 
> be
> able to do just that. At the same time this shouldn't prevent anybody
> else from working on MATH if they really want to.

Exactly (although the latter did not happen, and it's something for
the PMC to take into account when alternative are proposed).

>> Moreover, the lack of interest shown by the PMC:
> proves that nobody apart from Rob is willing to cut a MATH release 
> right
> now. The same would likely be true for a few other components as well
> (the last DISCOVERY release is almost six years old) and it doesn't
> worry me at all. It only says "MATH may be a candidate for going
> dormant" to me.

CM, yes; some of its packages and classes, definitely not (even though
a lot of work would be welcome to transition to the Java 8 era, and 
the library as relevant as the good implementations it contains).

> This is a PMC member view and certainly not the view of a MATH user. 
> But
> you are asking for a PMC opinion.

I hope that you can revise your opinion in light of the additional
info I've provided.

>> 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.
> Not really. I regularly ask for feedback on COMPRESS without getting 
> any
> responses but still manage to collect enough votes when I want to 
> carve
> a new release. Fortunately there are a few "hero"s (many thanks to 
> you!)
> on this list who manage to review RCs and cast votes for almost every
> candidate thrown their way, I'm not one of them.

As you know, this CM issue has created a lot of grievance.

I do complain that the PMC did not fulfill its role, by not even
trying to safe-guard the "Commons" project's integrity.

I expect the "Commons" PMC to _support_ the people who work here
(cf. "git log").


> Stefan

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

View raw message