> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > > Hello. > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:58:40 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> Hi Jochen, >> >> Jochen Wiedmann wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Jörg Schaible >>> <joerg.schai...@bpm-inspire.com> wrote: >>> >>>> That depends. If some packages of the current CM should stay as own >>>> component in Commons, these packages have to be identified. >>> >>> Whoever would support such a lunacy? Either CM moves entirely, or not at >>> all. > > It's not that clear-cut. > Thank you (and James, and Niall) for keeping the ball moving, at a > point where I was thinking that the game was over. However, we should > all realize that it's not because that all those codes were developed > within a single repository that they all belong together. > > [We got into this dire situation because so much code _depended_ (however > people here want to put it differently) on one or two people. > And it's not a size problem, per se; it's that it covers a very broad > scope, requiring expertise levels that are rarely found in one person, > even less so in a person who'd dedicated (him)herself to maintaining a > Java library. A TLP is something to attempt but I'm not optimistic that > we'll get much more traction.] > > By having some of the functionality severed from CM, it _increases_ the > likelihood that it will be used and contributed to. > And if this functionality is actually "mature", then it won't have to > be (fakely) upgraded (through changing of package name) just because > some other (non-mature) code would need it (to allow breaking changes). > > By way of consequence, such "split off" code will fulfill the Commons' > promise of stability. > > In turn, the separation will have positive effects on the prospective > TLP, if just by not having to deal with issues thus become "out-of-scope". > There may well be interactions between the TLP and Commons whenever the > TLP would choose to depend on a Commons component, but there will be > clear API boundaries. > >> If the new Commons Components have been identified, we can have a vote. Then >> we'll see what the majority want. All I can say now is that we have currenty >> no consensus about anything. Some of the stuff in CM is certainly common >> enough to build a valid Commons component. > > At last, we agree on this! [That was my main point since day one (June 5).] > > Instead of readily discussing the consequence of that observation, we fought > about "micro-management" of Commons Math... :-( > > I'll start a VOTE thread for each new Commons component candidate.
Would it make sense here to simply leave commons-math named commons math (mainly because mathematical naming conventions differ from the conventional vernacular [e.g. an artifact named commons-analysis might be confusing]), and deprecate anything that we plan to take and move to the incubator/TLP? -Rob > > Gilles > >> Cheers, >> Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
