On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > Henri Yandell wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Luc Maisonobe <luc.maison...@free.fr> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Luc Maisonobe a écrit : >>> >>> >>>> >>>> So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on >>>> [math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2. >>>> >>>> [] +1 change the top level package name >>>> [] 0 I don't care >>>> [] -1 keep the old name >>>> >>>> Vote open for 72 hours (up to Friday May 19th 20h00 UTC) >>>> >>> >>> Resending the result due to an error: James Carman vote is also a >>> binding vote, sorry for the mishap. >>> >>> This vote has failed with the following tally (marking binding votes >>> with *): >>> >>> +1* Luc Maisonobe >>> +1* Henri Yandell >>> +1* James Carman >>> +1* Brent Worden >>> +1 Edward J. Yoon >>> +1* Jörg Schaible >>> +1 Dimitri Pourbaix (changed from -1 to +1) >>> >>> +0 Ted Dunning >>> +0 Cyril Briquet >>> >>> -0 Bill Barker >>> >>> -1 Gilles Sadowski >>> -1* Niall Pemberton >>> -1* Phil Steitz (changed from +1 to -1) >>> >>> So the top level package name will remain org.apache.commons.math >>> >> >> Heh... now there can be a "keep the package name the same" vote that >> also fails :) >> > > Yeah. I have thought about that kind of thing before. Our "veto" rules > apply to code *changes* so strictly speaking that VOTE is not necessary. > What *could* happen is that enough people could -1 the release to > effectively block it. > > Of course, our way here is to come to agreement and it looks like we have > not done that in this case. My original vote (+1) was partly for > consistency with the rest of commons and out of fear of "jar hell" > scenarios. I was swayed by Niall's argument and reflection on use cases > that I am aware of. I am sure Niall as well is open to enlightenment if > others can point to practical use cases (observed or likely) involving > [math] that demonstrate that the "pain-minimizing" alternative is to change > the package name.
IMO jar-hell is an over used term in this thread and has become synonymous with breaking compatibility rather than real jar-hell which relates to components widely depended on. I also fear that commons marches towards a dictatorial model rather than a more loosely federal system that I believe it should be. I threw my -1 into the ring to hopefully make people stop to consider what seemed to be becoming an inevitability. As a non-Math developer I don't really believe I had any business doing so - but since so many other non-Math devs were throwing in their +1 votes.... I still don't believe this is a necessary step for Math, but if the Math devs want to do this I will withdraw my -1. Niall > Phil >> >> Hen >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
