Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-17 Thread Benedikt Ritter
2016-01-16 16:18 GMT+01:00 Phil Steitz : > The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like > therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate > TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go > about doing it. Votes, please. All are welcom

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-17 Thread Ate Douma
+1 Ate On 2016-01-16 16:18, Phil Steitz wrote: The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go about doing it. Votes, please. All are welco

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-17 Thread Henri Yandell
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: > The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like > therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate > TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go > about doing it. Votes, please. Al

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-17 Thread William Barker
+1 On Saturday, January 16, 2016, Phil Steitz wrote: > The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like > therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate > TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go > about doing it. Votes, please.

Re: [Math] Revamping the "random" package or ...

2016-01-17 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Le 17/01/2016 20:19, Gilles a écrit : > Hi Luc. > > [Thanks for handling the "revert" chores!] > > In my local "git", I've created a branch, called "long-rng", > initially, as the name indicates, for testing "long"-based > RNG implementations. > > As I've expanded on in other posts, I came to th

Re: [Math] Revamping the "random" package or ...

2016-01-17 Thread Gilles
Hi Luc. [Thanks for handling the "revert" chores!] In my local "git", I've created a branch, called "long-rng", initially, as the name indicates, for testing "long"-based RNG implementations. As I've expanded on in other posts, I came to think that further changes are needed in order to obtain

Re: [Math] Revamping the "random" package or ...

2016-01-17 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Le 17/01/2016 18:45, Phil Steitz a écrit : > On 1/17/16 9:33 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >> Le 17/01/2016 16:31, Phil Steitz a écrit : >>> On 1/17/16 6:34 AM, Gilles wrote: On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit : >> Hi. >> >

Re: [Math] Revamping the "random" package or ...

2016-01-17 Thread Gilles
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 15:57:51 +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote: On 01/17/2016 02:34 PM, Gilles wrote: On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote: Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit : [...] So I would suggest that rather than adding a parallel rng package, which reminds me of the dif

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-17 Thread Jörg Schaible
+1 Phil Steitz wrote: > The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like > therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate > TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go > about doing it. Votes, please. All are welcome to vote. > > [

Re: [Math] Revamping the "random" package or ...

2016-01-17 Thread Phil Steitz
On 1/17/16 9:33 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Le 17/01/2016 16:31, Phil Steitz a écrit : >> On 1/17/16 6:34 AM, Gilles wrote: >>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote: Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit : > Hi. > > Context: nobody gave an opinion on the arguments w

Re: [Math] Revamping the "random" package or ...

2016-01-17 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Le 17/01/2016 16:31, Phil Steitz a écrit : > On 1/17/16 6:34 AM, Gilles wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >>> Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit : Hi. Context: nobody gave an opinion on the arguments which I put forward in these posts: ht

Re: [Math] Revamping the "random" package or ...

2016-01-17 Thread Phil Steitz
On 1/17/16 6:34 AM, Gilles wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >> Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit : >>> Hi. >>> >>> Context: nobody gave an opinion on the arguments which I put >>> forward in these posts: >>> http://markmail.org/message/uiljlf63uucnfyy2 >>> htt

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-17 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
+0 Emmanuel Bourg Le 16/01/2016 16:18, Phil Steitz a écrit : > The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like > therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate > TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go > about doing it. Votes, pl

Re: [Math] Revamping the "random" package or ...

2016-01-17 Thread Thomas Neidhart
On 01/17/2016 02:34 PM, Gilles wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >> Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit : >>> Hi. >>> >>> Context: nobody gave an opinion on the arguments which I put >>> forward in these posts: >>> http://markmail.org/message/uiljlf63uucnfyy2 >>>

Re: [Math] Revamping the "random" package or ...

2016-01-17 Thread Gilles
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote: Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit : Hi. Context: nobody gave an opinion on the arguments which I put forward in these posts: http://markmail.org/message/uiljlf63uucnfyy2 http://markmail.org/message/ifwuijbgjytne6w2 As a consequence

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-17 Thread James Carman
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 11:46 AM wrote: > > Not sure whether I'm allowed to vote. But if I am: +1 > > Norman Shapiro > > Norman, you're a member of the Commons community. You are *definitely* allowed to vote. The Commons PMC doesn't discourage non-PMC members from voting. Take a look at th

Re: [Math] Revamping the "random" package or ...

2016-01-17 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit : > Hi. > > Context: nobody gave an opinion on the arguments which I put > forward in these posts: > http://markmail.org/message/uiljlf63uucnfyy2 > http://markmail.org/message/ifwuijbgjytne6w2 > > As a consequence, the lack of any development policy, rather

Re: [VOTE] Form a separate TLP based on [math]

2016-01-17 Thread Thomas Neidhart
On 01/16/2016 04:18 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > The discussion has thus far been generally favorable. I would like > therefore to put the proposal to split [math] out into a separate > TLP to a VOTE. Assuming a favorable vote, we can discuss how to go > about doing it. Votes, please. All are welco