Hi Eric.
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:48:17 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Gilles
<[email protected]>
wrote:
It sounds like you can create your new component on top of math4,
correct?
Would you rather reply to the technical arguments put forward in the
preceding paragraph?
I've already answered your question many times (see the archive).
You do not need anything else? Aside from a better component name
IMO.
"filter" is way to generic for me.
Is that the crux of the matter?
"Math" wasn't too generic perhaps?
Gilles
Hi Gilles, I read this email differently than you. My understanding
is that
Gary is open to a filter subproject
That is not clear either.
[In the same way that nobody argued (no "-1") against a "complex"
component when a vote took place nearly 4 months ago.]
but would just like a different name
(to which Bernd replied).
I wanted to note that some people view the same things with
different glasses, depending on how involved they are in the
projects.
But, I don't really know what he meant by the expression "built on
top of
math 4".
As I indicated in the other post, I interpret this as forcing
the current volunteers, who happen to use or want to maintain
a _tiny_ part of what is in CM, to take upon themselves the work
that would be required to modularize/maintain/release the whole
of CM.
If the last 10 months are any representative sample, this won't
happen, and consequently, the components which you, Bernd and
Arne are considering, will never be released either, unless you
copy/paste the CM "complex"-related codes into that component
(which I obviously do not recommend).
The question is: Why do some PMC members refuse to let us create
those components?
How is <any other Commons project> a better "component" than
"Commons Complex" would be?
I did not interpret it as putting all these new modules in math4 .
I'm pretty sure that if you proposed to put them there it would
have been enthusiastically accepted...
Fortunately (for this project), on this "filter" matter, experts
argue that this is not the right way to go.
Gilles
P.S. The same arguments will apply to Artem's proposed component
("clustering" based on CM's "o.a.c.m.ml" package).
Eric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
