> On Aug 21, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
This feels like a good compromise to me. I'm actually surprised were not going this direction with math 4. -Rob > > 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 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
