Hello Mike,
michael.brzustow...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Math3 devs,
>
> Is there a consensus on the future of Math3?
Definately. Not necessarily as Math3 for mid-term, since the plan was to
establish a Math TLP with the code base of Math 3/4 minus the code for the
three new components.
> I rel
Hi Math3 devs,
Is there a consensus on the future of Math3? I rely on the Linear Algebra
package and also Stats.
Is there major changes planned for those? I have heard some mentions of
refactoring going on,
but not sure how much would change to the API ... or if it's just
implementation details.
Brent Worden wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Jörg Schaible
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Gilles,
>>
>> Gilles wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Indeed, it will be much more productive to let the new(bie) team
>> > experiment within Commons by creating the following new components:
>> > * Commons RNG
>
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Jörg Schaible
wrote:
> Hi Gilles,
>
> Gilles wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Indeed, it will be much more productive to let the new(bie) team
> > experiment within Commons by creating the following new components:
> > * Commons RNG
> > * Commons AltMath
> > * Commo
Le 23/06/2016 à 19:20, Jörg Schaible a écrit :
> Hmm. Here I got lost. Do you now try to keep the "unsupported" parts in CM4
> or leave them out as proposed two lines above?
Well, that really depends on the usefulness of the parts considered. For
example even if we have no developer expert in F
Hi Emmanuel,
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 23/06/2016 à 14:33, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit :
>
>> The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree.
>> That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that
>> everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In partic
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
[snip]
> Indeed, it will be much more productive to let the new(bie) team
> experiment within Commons by creating the following new components:
> * Commons RNG
> * Commons AltMath
> * Commons MathTools
>
> The first one, pretty much, was accepted. Amazing.
Not y
Hello.
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:33:05 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Hi,
I'd like an attempt to put an end to all those discussions regarding
Commons Math (CM). That means, in particular, that we find an common
agreement on a course of action. So, here's a suggestion (might as
well call it an offe
Thank you for the clarification.
I like the idea of a commons-math base component, suiting the commons
mission.
If commons math were transmuted to a large scale new math project, that
competes with Hipparchus. Both projects are forks of the same scope and at
the same time. But in the Hipparchus c
+1 - Tell me how I can help. I like the idea that we contribute a (or some)
component(s) back to commons, but I think it makes a lot of sense to just work
towards community future state before concerning ourselves with code future
state, as that will happen naturally over time.
-Rob
> On Jun
Le 23/06/2016 à 14:33, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit :
> The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree.
> That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that
> everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In particular,
> there must not be any serious opposi
I realize there are good intentions here. But what the common theme of
all these email chains, when you filter out the disagreements, is,
"deferred until"
If 'deferring' is the only thing we can agree on, i think something is
broken with the system.
IMO let the doers do. Clearly Gilles is th
My answer would be slightly different. It doesn’t. All topics related to the
code should be deferred until we know what is happening with the community.
Ralph
> On Jun 23, 2016, at 5:50 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
>
> It doesn't, at least in my opinion. If the future Math project decides
>
It doesn't, at least in my opinion. If the future Math project decides
to have a "base" component: Very well. But, if the other components
are elsewhere: Why should the base stay at Commons?
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Eric Barnhill wrote:
> There has been a lot of support in the discussion
There has been a lot of support in the discussions for, as Emmanuel put it,
a "base commons-math
component".
Where does that factor into this proposal?
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like an attempt to put an end to all those discussions regarding
> Common
+1 - Go for it!
Ralph
> On Jun 23, 2016, at 5:33 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like an attempt to put an end to all those discussions regarding
> Commons Math (CM). That means, in particular, that we find an common
> agreement on a course of action. So, here's a suggestion (mig
Hi,
I'd like an attempt to put an end to all those discussions regarding
Commons Math (CM). That means, in particular, that we find an common
agreement on a course of action. So, here's a suggestion (might as
well call it an offer, because acceptance would mean a lot of work on
my side)
1.) I'l
17 matches
Mail list logo
