Hi Oliver.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:41:34 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote:
Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather
than
having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it
could?
If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
recommending an alternative, especially one that is derived from
commons-math, has the same license and an open development process.
The issue here is that an "in-house" solution has been proposed,
based on time-consuming work on the part of developers still
contributing here.
The PMC members should logically (?) favour any proper endeavour
that attempts to keep _this_ community alive.
For functionality that requires expertise not existing anymore
around
here, it would be fine though, of course.
Thus I ask that we make a list of such functionality before
dismissing
the local goodwill as if it didn't exist.
The minimal support you can expect from the PMC members is people
voting
on the releases, and if there is no show stopper like binary
incompatibilities, awful regressions or improperly licensed code,
the
vote will be a non-issue.
How can you be so sure? The last releases did not elicit an awful
lot
of votes; and that is for components that do not raise objections
about
their mere existence.
Give it a try?
OK for small, focused, components?
I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
Good to know!
I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical
components
extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are
small
and focused. It would seem strange if you opened the Commons Web site
and about half of the components were math-related.
How fortunate, then, that we have so few contributors! :-}
Seriously: There are 28 "Commons" components having had an official
release since 2014; there isn't the slightest chance that what you
worry about can happen.
My suggested top-priority goal would be to have "Commons Numbers"
released, with more modules and/or more code borrowed from CM:
http://markmail.org/thread/j5532mnsrgu4jzkv
These include utilities that easily qualify as "Commons"-type (as
evoked by Eric) or natural "Numbers" companions (e.g. "MathArrays").
The other concrete proposal was "Commons SigProc", that qualified
for inclusion. [Unfortunately, we lost contact with Bernd Porr...]
Then we can release a "legacy" CM 4.0, with up-to-date dependencies
to "Commons Numbers" and "Commons RNG", and several other improvements
and bug fixes that could benefit some users of CM.
Gilles
If this is the goal,
I would prefer to start again the top-level-project discussion.
Oliver
Gilles
Emmanuel Bourg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
