On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Amey Jadiye <ameyjad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> > wrote: > >> Hello Amey. > > > Hi Gilles, > >> >> >> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:45:45 +0530, Amey Jadiye wrote: >> >>> Pardon me for pulling this thread up again, I havent read anything about >>> "Commons Geometry" since long >>> >> >> Thanks for your renewed interest. >> >> (or may be I missed any other disscussion? ). >>> >> >> Probably not. >> >> is someone working on this ? >>> >> >> It would be a surprise. >> >> what is the final decision ? >>> >> >> There hasn't been any progress towards a decision. >> > > I'm not sure if "Lazy Consensus" works in these matters ? better take help > of it, its fast and easy. > > >> There isn't even a consensus on one of the central tenets of >> Apache ("Those who do the work..."): how sad/strange (?). >> >> I'm having good >>> amount of time to spend on this now, appreciate If someone direct me to >>> correct disscussion thread >>> >> >> IIRC, the one below is where we left off... >> >> I think I can help here. >>> >> >> Thanks for the offer! >> >> It took me half hour to read all old mails but dont see final verdict, >>> though I was in favour with Maven modules but after reading all again I >>> think Gilles approch is more practicle here and If no one is working I >>> can >>> submit something to review. >>> >> >> IMHO, the priority would be to review the status of "Numbers" >> (i.e. what is preventing a first release?). >> > > Ok, If commons number is priority let me check that first, I will chime in > here after that release. > last numbers release I see on 22/4/17, > apologies, that date belongs to site publish and SNAPSHOT, not the alpha release. and total open jiras are 18, what are min expectation here ? > I will open another thread If want advise., let this thread alive for > o.a.c.geometry. > > Regards, > Amey > > >> Best regards, >> Gilles >> >> >> >> Regards, >>> Amey >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 13:07:24 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Because of "Commons" rules, it is not "equivalent": There was >>>>> >>>>>> a long thread concluding that all modules must be released >>>>>> _together_, and with the same top-level package name and version >>>>>> number. >>>>>> It is very "maintainer(s)-unfriendly" because of the quite >>>>>> different subject matters that coexist in CM. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I wouldn't count that rule "*all* modules must be released" as a >>>>> mantra: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I found the idea attractive, but Stian (link to older discussion >>>> in a previous post) advised that maven would not easily "support" >>>> it. >>>> >>>> Has that changed since the discussion took place (10 months ago)? >>>> >>>> a) In case of an emergency release (fixing a CVE, for example), I'd >>>> >>>>> clearly consider pushing out the module as more important than waiting >>>>> for a full release. (Of course, one must be careful to maintain >>>>> compatibility when pushing out just a module, but that goes without >>>>> saying.) >>>>> b) I'd like to hear others experiences on that topic (maybe VFS). >>>>> Anyways, my personal experiences with Rat are clear: Releasing *all* >>>>> together is causing nothing but pain, and tends to defer releases >>>>> indefinitely. OTOH, releasing a submodule can be done at all times, >>>>> and without overly much preparation. >>>>> >>>>> In conclusion, I'd definitely support the release of a single >>>>> submodule, if the need would arise. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> How can one reconcile what you say here with what was said in >>>> that old thread? >>>> >>>> Would the PMC accept that a component contains independent modules >>>> (where "independent" means that each module can have its own version >>>> number, irrespective of the component's version)? >>>> >>>> Arguably (cf. thread referred to above), a "Commons" component >>>> should be simple enough that multiple versions are not necessary. >>>> [Chorus:] This is not the case with "Commons Math", hence separate >>>> components for independent contents (such as "Geometry", "RNG", >>>> "Numbers" and "SigProc") is the simplest solution. >>>> >>>> Gilles >>>> >>>> Jochen >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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