On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 10:58:29 -0500, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Henri Yandell wrote: > > On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 20:24:06 -0500, Mark Diggory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Even if we have to go through the incubator, I'm convinced that adding > >>the JAMA codebase into the math library is the best option. IMHO, I'm > > > > > > Can't see why the Incubator would be needed if the aim was to go from > > Apache/Jakarta/Commons/Math to Apache/Jakarta/Math. > > > > If it was to goto Apache/Math, might be a it more needed in terms of > > community discussion etc. > > > > There are two things going on here. One is is deciding where [math] is > going. Agreed that just moving to Jakarta/Math or even Apache/Math > really has nothing to do with the incubator. We should probably discuss > this on a different thread. > > What *does* potentially have to do with the incubator is bringing in a > substantial code base and hopefully (IMHO) some new contributors. This > would be analogous to DB/Axiom and other cases where contributed code > bases were incubated for eventual inclusion in existing projects.
You mean Axion. A humourous slip on a [math] thread. ;-) > If we bring in the entire JAMA code base, seems to me we would have to > bring it through the incubator. Correct me if I am wrong. > > > >>convinced that while the JAMA folks were very generous and open to > >>providing the codebase to the public domain, that further enhancing its > >>capabilities and providing any user support is not really in their > >>interest. It would be far more in our interest if we forked the codebase > >>and supported it. > > > > > > +1 assuming they're not actively supporting theirs anymore. > > But they *are* supporting the code. They are about to release a > maintenance release with some bug fixes. > > > > > >>Any suggestion that the "JAMA folks" would have to > >>"agree" to this is not the nature of public domain, IMO reuse of public > >>domain doesn't require any such acknowledgment, though we should > >>liberally acknowledge their contribution wherever possible. > > > > > > Or in the nature of the Apache licence. Still, it's polite to do so. > > Having their blessing is good from a PR point of view of a fork, it > > makes us the good natured folk who are supporting the tool, and not > > the evil baddies who are unwilling to work with the original. > > > > I assume that we'd still treat JAMA/RngPack as trademarks/names owned by > > others. > > > > <snip/> > > >>Note, JAMA is not a large codebase, and is in the public domain. As > >>such, does this really require the need for an "Incubator project"? > > > > > > Creation of math.apache.org might. > > Lets not mix the discussion of these two. For now, let's just assume we > are bringing the code into commons-math. > > > > If the JAMA/NIST community were moving their code over to apache.org, > > then it definitely would. As it is it sounds like we're just talking > > about an existing part of the Apache community forking a piece of code > > to use within their exisitng community. > > > > Incubation is really about communities and not code, so if the > > community is already incubated, I don't see why the code would have to > > be. > > > > Would you be looking to pull in the whole thing, or just using the > > JAMA/NIST code as a place to aquire some snippets/classes? I assume > > there's a fair amount of duplication already? > > Not that much duplication exists. What we are *deciding* now is how much > and how to pull it in. The options are as I described earlier in the thread: > > 0) snippets / classes as needed > 1) jar dependency > 2) full merge > > I am -0 on 2) without support from the JAMA developers or other > volunteers. The code base is not huge but some of the algorithms are > nontrivial. Wouldn't (0) be just a subset of (2), and thus lead to the same potential maintenance issues, albeit on a smaller scale? That being the case, it would seem to me that (1) might make the most sense, so that each group ([math] and JAMA) can focus on its own code and not have to worry too much about the other, other than where they come together. -- Martin Cooper > > While it's public domain, would we still treat it as a contribution > > (albeit one we pull rather than a contributor push) and maintain a > > note of contribution in the source or NOTICE? > > Yes, if we do 0), we would add attribution in NOTICE and class headers > for classes including JAMA code. JAMA folks would be fine with that. > > Phil > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
