On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:35:43 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
I agree with Benedikt. Plus, I have no idea who in Commons will
maintain this component since the “Math” guys say they con’t want it.
I gave concrete (positive) arguments for having the components
submitted
to this vote (see other threads).
Could you please comment on why it would not be a good component?
It's absolutely not that the "Math guys don't want it".
It's that it would better for everybody (developers here and there,
users,
maintainers, release managers, you name it) to have independent
components
for independent and/or core/standard and stable functionality.
When I argued about having flexibility where needed (e.g. in non-mature
"CM" code), the "stability" argument flag is raised to oppose it.
When I argue about enforcing stability (by consciously choosing the
"Commons" home), the "maintenance" is raised even though by definition
of "stability", this is unlikely to be an actual problem.
Actually, the really problematic codes (those currently unsupported)
will
_all_ go to the TLP (for the PMC there to decide what to do).
What I propose as new components are the "easy" stuff, meaning either
fairly easy to understand even by a newcomer, or easy to maintain (lots
of unit tests; small, independent functions etc.).
Having those as components will accelerate the opportunity for wider
adoption (code is "production"-ready, modulo rather trivial adjustments
to their new status), rather than having them wait until the TLP is on
track.
Gilles
Ralph
On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:26 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
<jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote:
-0
(I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first,
so
that CM can take such decisions without involving others. OTOH, I
won't stop you from doin that.)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Gilles
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
Hello.
This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons
components
out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
Representation of rational numbers
The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and
packages:
org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
Notes:
* This component will depend on the "Standard math functions"
component
(cf. other VOTE thread).
* Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
* API: stable.
* Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the
candidate
component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user
support,
bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
[ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
[ ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
Thanks,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
