Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:01:20 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> Gilles,
>>
>> Thanks for links.
>>
>> I just read that (long-winded) thread and I see no consensus that
>> "Commons
>> project is not being interested in hosting those components".
>
> In line with what I wrote previously, there isn't any consensus on
> anything
> within Commons.
>
> I'm asking, again, whether I need to initiate a VOTE that would allow
> me
> to set up a workspace ("git", etc.) and transfer some code from CM over
> there.
> Or can I jut do it? [Some help with doing that is most welcome.]
-1 (and this is a veto)
Not unless the future of the existing CM is clarified and we get (majority
?) consensus here on the list.
>> It may be that incubation is a good thing for Commons Math, but it
>> doesn't
>> seem valid to say that incubation is necessary because CM is being
>> kicked
>> out of Commons.
>
> Never said so.
>
> There is a confusion here: *I* say that CM is dead.
>
> It was dead already in early February but nobody noticed because *I*
> (alone) continued to answer the ML, comment on JIRA reports and commit
> code.
>
> Why I was alone doing that became clear when Luc announced his
> resignation
> and the fork.
>
> The development situation *will* change because the context *has*
> changed
> (unsupported code).
> CM cannot go on as it did before the fork.
And this is exactly the question. For me as PMC member of Commons I have to
look at all components and it is not the first time that the original
authors of a component vanishes and it won't be the last. Either new people
will stay up to carry on (there are already some new ones) or the component
is moved at some point into dormant state, because it gets obsolete (maybe
because of the fork, future will tell).
However, we care for all Commons components and their usage in the wild.
Nearly all of our components are buried deep down in some software stacks
and therefore we always take care to an extreme extent to compatibility of
new releases. With your proposal to rip CM into parts you leave the current
users of CM out in the rain. *You* tell them simply to use your new shiny
components A and B and for the rest they should stay at old CM (that still
contains on top the old stuff of A and B). Sorry, but this is not a proper
scenario for Commons.
> Everybody (developers, users, Commons PMC) would be better off with a
> selected set of new (supported) components because this is something we
> can easily do *now* (RERO, etc.).
Again, this is *your* point of view and it is caused by *your* refusal to
consider a CM release that contains the existing code base, just because
this includes also code *you* cannot/will not/have no interest to support or
maintain. Nobody asked the latter of *you*, just to keep the code untouched
where you have no interest to work with. Nobody would stop you from working
on the rest.
> I'm OK to go through the incubator to do that; but I don't see that it
> is an easier path. Surely it looks longer. And it seems that even the
> incubator people doubt that it will lead anywhere.
>
> Given the uncertain outcome, going through the incubator would be an
> attempt at rethinking the development of the currently unsupported
> code. See e.g.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-172
> [Or is that out of scope for an incubation proposal?]
The incubator seems at least to be an option to go forward with CM.
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
