What about this for a compromise: create Commons Math 5 as a multi-module project and bring in as submodules only the newly minted components and whatever gets spun out of Math 3/4.
Gary On Aug 21, 2017 13:26, "Dave Brosius" <dbros...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I get that what you are really trying to do is kill Commons Math off > piece by piece. I just don’t agree with doing that. > > > This is ridiculous. Giles is the primary person trying to keep some > semblance of commons-math-like-stuff alive. He has asserted that there is > no way he can maintain all of commons-math, and no one else is really all > that interested. Time has proven he is right. > > Given he is trying his best to keep code going, and actually the one doing > the work, perhaps we should be a little bit less offensive about trying to > shut him down. > > --dave > > On 08/21/2017 01:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> On Aug 21, 2017, at 4:39 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: >>> >>> 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? >>> >> Technical arguments are not required since this is basically a >> housekeeping issue. >> >> I’m not sure why I would answer your last question since you are clearly >> going to have a different opinion. But many of us believe that Math is a >> great name for a project that contains math subcomponents, rather than >> wading through a bunch of different Commons projects. Eventually you are >> going to want Commons Statistics, Commons Transforms, Commons Primes, etc. >> or things that are even more specific. All of these should be modules under >> Math. To be honest, I’m really not clear why Commons Numbers was approved >> as I’ve never heard anyone talk about complex numbers or fractions in >> anything but a mathematical concept. >> >> I get that what you are really trying to do is kill Commons Math off >> piece by piece. I just don’t agree with doing that. >> >> Ralph >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > >
