On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:31:55 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Am 20.08.2017 um 23:11 schrieb Ralph Goers
<ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>:
I have to agree with Jochen and am -1 to this proposal. I have
stated before that I don’t want to see Commons become the placeholder
for all the Math related components. If Math has stuff that can’t be
maintained then create a MathLegacy project in the sandbox and move
the stuff there.
I’ve also already argued in that direction.
I gave technical arguments in favour of the proposal (cf. first
post in this thread).
People opposing it give none.
A sudden "allergy" of some PMC members to "math"-related code
does not warrant rejecting non-obsolete code.[1]
A good start would be to answer this question: Why is it bad (or
worse than the current situation) to have this "new" component?
Gilles
[1] Unless you have exclusive information that geometrical
concepts will be outdated soon.
Benedikt
Ralph
On Aug 19, 2017, at 5:44 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
<jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Gilles
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
How about creating "Commons Geometry"?
Honestly: There are other subprojects (Vfs comes to mind), which
are
perfectly able to produce a set of jar file without adding to the
list
of jar files for every one. Why do you require a new subproject?
Given the amount of noise, that numbers, RNG, etc. have produced
over
the last year, I am more than hesitant to have more of that. (In
particular, when considering the rather limited amount of releases,
which have grown out of that. The "Downloads" section for numbers
is
still pointing to RNG.)
As far, as I am concerned, I am clearly -1
Jochen
--
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
