On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:00:34 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Gilles
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
...
I'm asking, again, whether I need to initiate a VOTE that would
allow me
to set up a workspace ("git", etc.) and transfer some code from CM
over
there.
Nothing is stopping you from setting something up. Github is usually
the
easiest way.
It doesn't sound like that is what you want, however. I don't
understand
why not.
And I don't understand that Apache would indeed prefer that code be
forked
rather than evolved here...
It may be that incubation is a good thing for Commons Math, but it
doesn't
seem valid to say that incubation is necessary because CM is being
kicked
out of Commons.
Never said so.
Hmm... I must have misunderstood the comment about CM not being
interested
in hosting "these components".
Commons is NOT interested in hosting the new components.
That much was made clear in Matt Benson's last post. [Maybe not
cross-posted
to the incubator's ML.]
There is a confusion here: *I* say that CM is dead.
Strong words. Such statements are often frustrating to others.
Not strong, just factual.
Maybe it will be revived in the future.
Until then, I proposed to *do* something while the others seem to only
want to wait.
Strange that the latter proposal seems more acceptable than mine.
It does
sound like the community has dwindled, perhaps beyond repair.
It sure sounds like it.
In fewer words: CM is dead.
The development situation *will* change because the context *has*
changed
(unsupported code). CM cannot go on as it did before the fork.
You can never go home. No project stays the same.
Well, some people in CM for years did their best to avoid change.
I didn't like that view and argue with them because they were
important contributors to CM.
I still have to argue, but now with non-contributors.
*This* makes no sense.
Everybody (developers, users, Commons PMC) would be better off with
a
selected set of new (supported) components because this is something
we
can easily do *now* (RERO, etc.).
This was your assertion in the long email thread. It seemed that
there was
significant counter-positions.
By non-contributors, using arguments that do not fit the CM history.
I'm OK to go through the incubator to do that; but I don't see that
it
is an easier path. Surely it looks longer. And it seems that even
the
incubator people doubt that it will lead anywhere.
The incubator is for building community and adapting to Apache. If
you
don't have a seed community, then incubator is the wrong place. You
need to
have more than just you.
That's fair, but there are a few others; that was mentioned.
Given the uncertain outcome, going through the incubator would be an
attempt at rethinking the development of the currently unsupported
code. See e.g.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-172
[Or is that out of scope for an incubation proposal?]
Incubator is not a place to rethink code. It is primarily for
building
community.
I thought so.
So, that leaves us with TLP. Back to square one.
Gilles
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gilles
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:51:36 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
Excuse me?
See inline.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
Hi all.
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
I thought this had been made clear. Several months Commons
voted to
make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people
involved
with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for
them,
so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the
TLP vote
since the proposed PMC is no longer valid. There is one person
left
who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people
who have
expressed interest in joining the new community.
So this is a situation where we have an already existing code
base
where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a
bit of
it. The new group of people who are interested are trying to
determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of
breaking
Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some
where
there is no one to maintain it.
The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those
components,
is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go
in
that
direction?
Perhaps before we move to next steps, could you provide some
links to
the
discussion where it was decided that Commons is not interested in
hosting
these components?
I proposed to concretely examine this possibility in more than
one message:
http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp
http://markmail.org/message/3gupcednhqtcfepw
http://markmail.org/message/3kob7djjicax6rgn
http://markmail.org/message/7rb2mxq7hhwzykvr
And again in another thread:
http://markmail.org/message/fnlta2ttfne3aj5f
What's the next step?
Let's get to a common understanding of what went before.
Even that seems impossible. :-(
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
