----- Original Message -----
From: "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] [math] top-level package name
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.
No, mostly the [math] devs went -1 (I went -0 only because my vote doesn't
count ;).
Niall
Phil
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
