Mikkel Meyer Andersen wrote: > Phil, > I understand your opinion, but I don't agree with you (but I accept > that you have a different meaning about things just as I expect you to > accept mine). I'm sure this is quite common in projects like this, and > are interesting in hearing how matters like this are settled? Are > there any committers besides you - and how many? And do you guys they > have some sort of private list where you discuss this or is it totally > up to you to decide how this ends (maybe waiting for others on the > list to have their saying)? I don't mean to be rude or impolite, so > excuse me if I am; I just don't know how this stuff works.
All discussion happens on the public list. Sometimes it takes a while for us to reach consensus and often the consensus represents a compromise that we did not see as a possibility at first. I am open to making it easy to provide inversion-based random data generators. I just don't like your suggested implementation and package placement. I proposed an alternative (a generic method added somewhere in the random package), which you did not like. There are no doubt other better ways to do this. Perhaps others have ideas? Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
