Hi Emmanuel.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:03:05 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Gilles,
I admit I'm not sure to understand what you are complaining about.
Last
year you complained that you were the last one maintaining
commons-math
It was not a complaint, but a (sad) fact.
and that a monolithic component was unsustainable.
Not a complaint, but my analysis of the actual situation:
http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp
Since then we got new
contributors and smaller components have been spun off commons-math.
Yes; and it is good per se, of course. Unforunately, it didn't change
the Commons Math issue: it's still unmaintained, and from what I
observe
on JIRA, it's not going to improve with time (I said that much one year
ago and I was right, in hindsight).
What do you expect now that is blocked by the PMC?
With "Commons RNG", I think that I showed that the "new, small, focused
components" route is the right one.[1]
Such components can be used and contributed to easily. For example,
because
there are much fewer parts, there is much less risk that pulling on a
thread
will lead to sweeping changes (into parts where one can be clueless
about
the implications).
Also, a focused component can be maintained by a single developer, if
need
be. Looking at the evolution of the older/mature components, it seems
that
it is most often the case nowadays.
CM can be further recycled in that way. I tried to (re-)start a
discussion
about it:
http://markmail.org/thread/j5532mnsrgu4jzkv
Last time I acted (to request a "git" repository from INFRA), you
(IIRC,
pardon me if I'm wrong) complained ;-) that it had not been agreed
upon...
IMO, there is a contradiction in the PMC being both passive (not
contributing
to the overall health of CM[2]) and active (in preventing "do-ocracy"
wrt the
choice of a roadmap for CM[3]).
Moreover, the lack of interest shown by the PMC:
http://markmail.org/thread/pgrgnnwjnqrtzrw3
http://markmail.org/message/ulxcoqd663lgvul3
is a worrying indication that any further work can be doomed to not get
the
minimal support for an official release, even if there would be no
"technical
reason"[4] to prevent such release.
Thanks for your attention[5],
Gilles
[1] It's the right size and scope: I now agree with the PMC members who
did not see it useful to have its current modules as separate
components.
[2] Assuming that a dead/zombie project cannot be healthy. ;-)
[3] My roadmap is totally conservative: CM code that is not moved to
another component, stays in CM "master" branch as is, for anyone to
pick up later. The alternative is not conservative, and could lead
to changes that will prove wrong later on.
[4] Apart from the plenty of unresolved issues (cf. JIRA).
[5] As usual, sorry for the long email, but trying to keep messages
short does not seem to help either in conveying correctly what I
perceive as a need for PMC action...
Emmanuel Bourg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
