Le 23/06/2016 à 14:33, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit : > The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree. > That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that > everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In particular, > there must not be any serious opposition later on. If you'd like to > oppose: Please do so here, and now.
Thank you for proposing a plan Jochen. I'm certainly in the "I can live with that" category, but I'm a bit skeptical about the outcome. Neither the incubator nor a TLP sound viable to me at this point, because the community around commons-math hasn't recovered from the loss of its historical contributors. I'd would rather incubate the Math TLP within Commons until more contributors like Eric join the party. Because the best way to attract developers is to release something useful, I'd suggest releasing as soon as possible something derived from the current Commons Math 4 base: - commons-random: with the random number generators - commons-math4: with the core math utilities (fractions, complex, fastmath, stats, FFT, etc) and leaving out the orphaned parts judged too specialized like the genetic algorithms. The core commons-math4 may contain "unsupported" parts as long as they are properly covered by unit tests and not too specialized. Does this sound like an acceptable compromise? Emmanuel Bourg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
