> On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:48 PM, James Carman wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:11 PM Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Personally, I think the vote that took place to move Math to a TLP should
>> now be considered void since the proposed PMC no longer exists.
>> Furthermore, at the moment Math
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:48 AM James Carman
wrote:
>
> Phil Seitz
> Luc Maisonobe
> Gary Gregory
> Thomas Neidhart
> Gilles Sadowski
> William Barker
> Otmar Ertl
>
>
Apologies to Phil for misspelling his name, Steitz.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:11 PM Ralph Goers
wrote:
>
> Personally, I think the vote that took place to move Math to a TLP should
> now be considered void since the proposed PMC no longer exists.
> Furthermore, at the moment Math doesn’t have a sufficient number of
> participants to make it a via
I like the idea of splitting Math into multiple components. Even Phil, in
the TLP VOTE thread, said:
"We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting [math]
itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done in Commons,
but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commo
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:11 PM Ralph Goers
wrote:
>
> Personally, I think the vote that took place to move Math to a TLP should
> now be considered void since the proposed PMC no longer exists.
> Furthermore, at the moment Math doesn’t have a sufficient number of
> participants to make it a via
> On Jun 10, 2016, at 1:26 PM, James Carman wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:29 PM Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>
>> Not only is the original chair not available, neither is a quorum of the
>> proposed PMC. Why are you pushing this? I, for one, am perfectly content
>> to keep Math here and see i
ou so sure that "it will do more" that what I propose,
> which is in fact quite constructive.
>
> I understand that you may be angry by this long chain of mails.
> But please do not shoot at the bearer of bad news.
>
> Regards,
> Gilles
>
>> Thanks,
>> Pa
Hi James.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 20:26:07 +, James Carman wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:29 PM Ralph Goers
wrote:
Not only is the original chair not available, neither is a quorum of
the
proposed PMC. Why are you pushing this? I, for one, am perfectly
content
to keep Math here and see
egards,
Gilles
Thanks,
Patrick
-Original Message-
From: Jörg Schaible [mailto:joerg.schai...@bpm-inspire.com]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 6:20 AM
To: dev@commons.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Math] Commons Math (r)evolution
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 01:48:20 +0200,
Hello Jörg.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:19:56 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 01:48:20 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
[snip]
MATH-172 is about an enhancement. Unfortunately no-one can
currently
implement it, so we have to wait until someone can or the
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:29 PM Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Not only is the original chair not available, neither is a quorum of the
> proposed PMC. Why are you pushing this? I, for one, am perfectly content
> to keep Math here and see if those who have expressed interest in helping
> out actually do
>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 11:54 AM, James Carman
>> wrote:
>>
>> We already voted to make it go TLP and it passed. The original chair of
>> the new project isn't available any more. Gilles, are you willing to chair
>> the new project? Is anyone else willing to help Gilles perhaps take Math
>> thr
Not only is the original chair not available, neither is a quorum of the
proposed PMC. Why are you pushing this? I, for one, am perfectly content to
keep Math here and see if those who have expressed interest in helping out
actually do and if others are attracted to fill in the gaps.
Ralph
>
We already voted to make it go TLP and it passed. The original chair of
the new project isn't available any more. Gilles, are you willing to chair
the new project? Is anyone else willing to help Gilles perhaps take Math
through the incubator to gather more momentum? Can we perhaps reach out to
> On Jun 10, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> I agree with Jörg's email below. Furthermore, to me, the best chance
>> [math] has a shot to survive and prosper (I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy)
>> is to stay in Commons in its current single modul
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Jörg Schaible
wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
> Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> > I agree with Jörg's email below. Furthermore, to me, the best chance
> > [math] has a shot to survive and prosper (I'm a glass-half-full kinda
> guy)
> > is to stay in Commons in its current single mod
Hi Gary,
Gary Gregory wrote:
> I agree with Jörg's email below. Furthermore, to me, the best chance
> [math] has a shot to survive and prosper (I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy)
> is to stay in Commons in its current single module form (KISS) _because_ a
> bunch of [math] developer's have left. We
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:56 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:52 PM Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Jörg's email below. Furthermore, to me, the best chance
> [math]
> > has a shot to survive and prosper (I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy) is to
> > stay in Commons in i
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:52 PM Gary Gregory
wrote:
> I agree with Jörg's email below. Furthermore, to me, the best chance [math]
> has a shot to survive and prosper (I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy) is to
> stay in Commons in its current single module form (KISS) _because_ a bunch
> of [math] d
I agree with Jörg's email below. Furthermore, to me, the best chance [math]
has a shot to survive and prosper (I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy) is to
stay in Commons in its current single module form (KISS) _because_ a bunch
of [math] developer's have left. We have a bunch of people in Commons that
e 10, 2016 6:20 AM
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Math] Commons Math (r)evolution
>
> Hi Gilles,
>
> Gilles wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 01:48:20 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> MATH-172 is about an
o more to sustain CM.
Thanks,
Patrick
-Original Message-
From: Jörg Schaible [mailto:joerg.schai...@bpm-inspire.com]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 6:20 AM
To: dev@commons.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Math] Commons Math (r)evolution
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 01:48:20 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
[snip]
>> MATH-172 is about an enhancement. Unfortunately no-one can currently
>> implement it, so we have to wait until someone can or the issue stays
>> simply
>> unresolved again. You've requested fo
Hi.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 01:48:20 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
[snip]
_Some_ developer(s) should be able to support whatever is in
development.
Otherwise how can it be deemed "in development"?
Just today, two issues were reported on JIRA:
https://issues.apache.org/
Exactly!
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 10:54 PM Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Given how few Math committees there are, that would require going into the
> incubator.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Jun 9, 2016, at 6:24 PM, James Carman
> wrote:
> >
> > TLP TLP TLP!
> >
> > You can split it up into whatever you want.
> >
> >
Given how few Math committees there are, that would require going into the
incubator.
Ralph
> On Jun 9, 2016, at 6:24 PM, James Carman wrote:
>
> TLP TLP TLP!
>
> You can split it up into whatever you want.
>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:49 PM Gilles wrote:
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> Commons Math
TLP TLP TLP!
You can split it up into whatever you want.
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:49 PM Gilles wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Commons Math as it was in the last official release (v3.6.1) and
> consequently as it is in the current development branch has
> become unmaintainable.
>
> This conclusion is unavo
+1. (Or -1, depending on which way you want to look at it).
Ralph
> On Jun 9, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
> Hi Gilles,
>
> Gilles wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> _Some_ developer(s) should be able to support whatever is in
>> development.
>> Otherwise how can it be deemed "in developmen
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
[snip]
> _Some_ developer(s) should be able to support whatever is in
> development.
> Otherwise how can it be deemed "in development"?
>
> Just today, two issues were reported on JIRA:
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-172
>https://issues.apache.org/j
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:53:20 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Jun 9, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Gilles
wrote:
Hello Jörg.
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 09:43:06 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:50:00 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Gille
Hi.
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 18:02:49 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Gilles
wrote:
I guess someone need to prioritize them according to they
importance for
release.
Importance is relative... :-}
Indeed it's very objective function, however someone has to dec
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Gilles wrote:
> >
> > Hello Jörg.
> >
> > On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 09:43:06 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> >> Hi Gilles,
> >>
> >> Gilles wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:50:00 +0300, Artem Barg
> On Jun 9, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Gilles wrote:
>
> Hello Jörg.
>
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 09:43:06 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Gilles,
>>
>> Gilles wrote:
>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:50:00 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Gilles
wrote:
Hello Jörg.
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 09:43:06 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:50:00 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Gilles
wrote:
According to JIRA, among 180 issues currently targeted for the
next major release (v4.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> I guess someone need to prioritize them according to they importance for
>
>> release.
>>
>
> Importance is relative... :-}
>
Indeed it's very objective function, however someone has to decide
where to focus.
> IMO, it is important to not
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:50:00 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Gilles
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> According to JIRA, among 180 issues currently targeted for the
> next major release (v4.0), 139 have been resolved (75 of which
>
Hi.
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:50:00 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Gilles
wrote:
According to JIRA, among 180 issues currently targeted for the
next major release (v4.0), 139 have been resolved (75 of which
were not in v3.6.1).
Huh, it's above of 75% completion
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Gilles
wrote:
>
> According to JIRA, among 180 issues currently targeted for the
>>> next major release (v4.0), 139 have been resolved (75 of which
>>> were not in v3.6.1).
>>>
>>>
>> Huh, it's above of 75% completion :)
>>
>
> Everybody is welcome to review the
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> Which parts of Commons Math would be dependencies for this type
> of applications?
> Which algorithms of your applications would be generic enough to
> warrant becoming part of a toolbox based on the "Complex" class?
>
It seems to me that the pri
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:31:28 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote:
I am not a mathematician so I would not be able to play a
particularly
catholic role in commons-math.
I don't think that the majority of contributors would have
qualified themselves as "mathematician".
In the current situation, it would
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:10:17 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Gilles
wrote:
According to JIRA, among 180 issues currently targeted for the
next major release (v4.0), 139 have been resolved (75 of which
were not in v3.6.1).
Huh, it's above of 75% completion :)
On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 17:57:53 +, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Hello Gilles,
I think ApacheCon Europe would be a good opportunity to spread the
word
about this.
I hope that by this time, if you want to say a few words about Commons
Math, you'll have more positive things to mention... And by thi
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:39:49 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
Although I am not involved in Math I find myself wondering if we
shouldn’t just step back and take a breath before rushing into
anything.
There isn't any rush, modularization (as many other things, like
e.g. to stop sticking to Java 5) has b
Although I am not involved in Math I find myself wondering if we shouldn’t just
step back and take a breath before rushing into anything. It may be that the
approach being recommended is the correct one, but it also may be that there
are other people waiting in the wings that we are unaware of.
Hello Gilles,
I think ApacheCon Europe would be a good opportunity to spread the word
about this.
Benedikt
Gilles schrieb am Mo., 6. Juni 2016 um
02:49 Uhr:
> Hello.
>
> Commons Math as it was in the last official release (v3.6.1) and
> consequently as it is in the current development branch h
I am not a mathematician so I would not be able to play a particularly
catholic role in commons-math. But, I am always delighted when my research
needs allow me to spin off contributions into the code base.
I work with complex valued 3 to 6-dimensional image volumes. So I am happy
to maintain code
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Gilles wrote:
>
> According to JIRA, among 180 issues currently targeted for the
> next major release (v4.0), 139 have been resolved (75 of which
> were not in v3.6.1).
>
Huh, it's above of 75% completion :)
> So, on the one hand, a lot of work has been done a
Hello.
Commons Math as it was in the last official release (v3.6.1) and
consequently as it is in the current development branch has
become unmaintainable.
This conclusion is unavoidable when looking at the following:
1. codebase statistics (as of today):
* src/main/java 90834 lines of
48 matches
Mail list logo
