> On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:18:36 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> > On Oct 12, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > IIRC, many PMC members did not "like" the idea of having more >>> > components. >>> > Even less so if those components are being extracted from Commons >>> > Math. >>> > The least "problematic" one, Commons RNG, barely collected the >>> > number of required votes for a release. >>> > >>> > Has that changed? >>> > Shall we request git repositories for the candidate components >>> > which I suggested back in May? >>> >>> >>> To be clear, Apache Commons currently lists about 40 sub-projects. These >>> projects are typically small and not closely related with any other >>> sub-project in any clear way. The objection isn’t to adding more >>> sub-projects, it is to adding more sub-projects that seem related closely >>> enough that really belong together. However, I don’t believe anyone >>> objected to Commons Math being a multi-module project. >>> >>> I would object to creating new Commons components that are forked off from >>> Commons Math that have no maintainers. > > It is "Commons Math" that does not have maintainers. > > The new components, would, conspicuously, have maintainers. > That's one of the main arguments in favour of this option. > >>> If there is code the Commons Math >>> team doesn’t want then just get rid of it in your new version. > > This option had been rejected in previous discussions, when I > suggested that I would not release code that I could not > maintain. >
Replace “I” with “we” and we are in agreement. It really isn’t all that important what one individual can or cannot do. Ralph
