Hi Jörg.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:31:17 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Oliver,
Oliver Heger wrote:
Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather
than
having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it
could?
If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
commons-math, has the same license and an open development
process.
The issue here is that an "in-house" solution has been proposed,
based on time-consuming work on the part of developers still
contributing here.
The PMC members should logically (?) favour any proper endeavour
that attempts to keep _this_ community alive.
For functionality that requires expertise not existing anymore
around
here, it would be fine though, of course.
Thus I ask that we make a list of such functionality before
dismissing
the local goodwill as if it didn't exist.
The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is people
voting
on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed code,
the
vote will be a non-issue.
How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an awful
lot
of votes; and that is for components that do not raise objections
about
their mere existence.
Give it a try?
OK for small, focused, components?
I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical
components
extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are
small
and focused. It would seem strange if you opened the Commons Web
site
and about half of the components were math-related. If this is the
goal,
I would prefer to start again the top-level-project discussion.
Then let's continue with it unless we *have* a significant number of
components. If those attract in completion enough
contributors/committers,
we can again try to form a TLP and donate all of them. IMHO the
creation of
RNG and Numbers was healthy to our ecosystem, therefore I don't see a
reason
to stop with the separation of more component out of Math now.
What a change from the generally overwhelmingly negative tone
of this ML! ;-)
Can we learn something from why it was so hard for long-time
developers to accept even non-destructive changes?
IOW, can we expand on what is "healthy to our ecosystem"?
Thank you,
Gilles
Cheers,
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
