Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Rahul Akolkar a écrit :
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<robertburrelldon...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
(apologies for jumping in half way through)
luc.maison...@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
Considering the ongoing discussion in another thread, the current changes that
have been done on
[math] for the last months belong to the major changes with large
incompatibilities with previous versions.
We have already decided that the version number will be 2.0 to acknowledge
that. I know of at least one big
international research project that uses commons-math 1.2 and will switch to
2.0 when it will be published.
They have already faced compatibility problems recently (two days ago).
Should we change the top level package name from org.apache.commons.math to
org.apache.commons.math2 ?
why not org.apache.math ;-)
maybe the time and interest levels are now right to consider a TLP...
<snip/>
I'd support such a resolution if and when the [math] developers deem it fit.
This is tempting ...
The pros:
There is currently some momentum in [math] and several people seem
interested. There are also several other mathematical projects floating
around and apparently ready to cooperate. The component is becoming
quite large by now and its focus slightly shifts away from the rest of
the commons components.
The cons:
Maybe the current interest will vanish once 2.0 is out. A top level
project is probably more administrative work than simply resting in the
comfort of the commons.
What do other people think ?
Until they kick us out, I say stay here ;)
Somewhat more seriously, I like staying in commons for three reasons
1) We get good advice, help on administrivia, and committed committers
showing up now and then. This is the core benefit that all commons
components share.
2) While we are getting some nice "long tail" contributions in the runup
to 2.0, I don't think we have critical "committed committer" mass to
maintain a TLP right now.
3) Diffusion and umbrella-ism is a big risk if we go TLP. While we have
grown a substantial codebase here, it is still manageable as a single
maven project, delivering a single, self-contained 100% Java jar. I
would like to hold onto that. I guess it is possible for that to be a
subproject of a broader umbrella, but I am not personally energized by
the umbrella idea and I would rather live in a place that is very good
at managing java components than a new umbrella.
Of course, this is all your fault, Robert (he he)
(For those not around at the time, Robert created the monster that is
now [math]....)
Phil
Luc
-Rahul
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
