Re: [math] TLP next steps

[Phil Steitz]

I just kicked off the PMC membership recruiting thread.

I think there are three more immediate things we need to do:

0) decide on a name for the new project
1) agree on initial PMC chair
2) draft a board resolution to form the new project

Post-2), there will be lots of fun to have - scm, web site, JIRA,
release / maintenance strategy, etc - but I think we can focus on
0)-2) first.

I will kick off a naming thread.  I am willing to take the initial
chair duties, but happy to let someone else do it.

Phil

On 1/20/16 6:40 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> I think the next logical step is to determine who the members of the
> new PMC and the new PMC chair will be.  That information will need
> to go in a Board resolution to actually form the new TLP.  I suggest
> that we start by asking for PMC volunteers among the Commons
> Committers.  Are others OK with this?  If so, I will kick off a
> volunteer for the [math] PMC thread. 
>
> Phil
>



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [math] TLP next steps

[Benedikt Ritter]

2016-01-20 14:40 GMT+01:00 Phil Steitz :

> I think the next logical step is to determine who the members of the
> new PMC and the new PMC chair will be.  That information will need
> to go in a Board resolution to actually form the new TLP.  I suggest
> that we start by asking for PMC volunteers among the Commons
> Committers.  Are others OK with this?  If so, I will kick off a
> volunteer for the [math] PMC thread.
>

Sounds good to me!

Benedikt


>
> Phil
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
http://home.apache.org/~britter/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter

[math] TLP next steps

[Phil Steitz]

I think the next logical step is to determine who the members of the
new PMC and the new PMC chair will be.  That information will need
to go in a Board resolution to actually form the new TLP.  I suggest
that we start by asking for PMC volunteers among the Commons
Committers.  Are others OK with this?  If so, I will kick off a
volunteer for the [math] PMC thread. 

Phil


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [math] TLP

[James Carman]

Oh, I suppose you're right :)  For some reason, I had it in my mind that he
called a vote and not just a discussion.  My bad.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM Gary Gregory 
wrote:

> I did not know this was an official vote thread ;-) in any case, I do not
> feel strongly for or against it.
>
> Gary
> On Jan 15, 2016 5:21 AM, "James Carman" 
> wrote:
>
> > You didn't really register a vote here, Gary.  I take it this is a -1
> > against moving TLP?
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:24 PM Gary Gregory 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects
> in
> > > Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.
> > >
> > > My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception
> that
> > > [math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> > > > project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> > > > always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> > > > convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> > > > reasons:
> > > >
> > > > 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> > > > [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for
> them
> > > > 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> > > > tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> > > > 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> > > > [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> > > > in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> > > > has components with subcomponents).
> > > >
> > > > The downsides are
> > > > a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> > > > us otherwise
> > > > b) Migration / repackaging pain
> > > > c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> > > > d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> > > > point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> > > > little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> > > > Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> > > > to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> > > > direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
> > > >
> > > > What do others think about this?
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
> > > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > > 
> > > JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
> > > Spring Batch in Action 
> > > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> > >
> >
>

Re: [math] TLP

[Gary Gregory]

I did not know this was an official vote thread ;-) in any case, I do not
feel strongly for or against it.

Gary
On Jan 15, 2016 5:21 AM, "James Carman"  wrote:

> You didn't really register a vote here, Gary.  I take it this is a -1
> against moving TLP?
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:24 PM Gary Gregory 
> wrote:
>
> > I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
> > Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.
> >
> > My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
> > [math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> > > project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> > > always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> > > convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> > > reasons:
> > >
> > > 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> > > [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> > > 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> > > tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> > > 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> > > [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> > > in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> > > has components with subcomponents).
> > >
> > > The downsides are
> > > a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> > > us otherwise
> > > b) Migration / repackaging pain
> > > c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> > > d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
> > >
> > > Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> > > point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> > > little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> > > Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> > > to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> > > direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
> > >
> > > What do others think about this?
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > 
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
> > Spring Batch in Action 
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
>

Re: [math] TLP

[James Carman]

You didn't really register a vote here, Gary.  I take it this is a -1
against moving TLP?

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:24 PM Gary Gregory  wrote:

> I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
> Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.
>
> My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
> [math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz 
> wrote:
>
> > I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> > project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> > always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> > convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> > reasons:
> >
> > 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> > [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> > 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> > tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> > 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> > [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> > in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> > has components with subcomponents).
> >
> > The downsides are
> > a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> > us otherwise
> > b) Migration / repackaging pain
> > c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> > d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
> >
> > Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> > point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> > little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> > Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> > to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> > direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
> >
> > What do others think about this?
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> 
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
> Spring Batch in Action 
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>

Re: [math] TLP

[James Carman]

So, do we count this as a +1 for Math to go TLP?

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:04 PM Ole Ersoy  wrote:

> I love the idea.  I also think commons will get a lot more eye balls if it
> gets all the repositories on github and enables the watch button as well as
> github issues.
>
> Cheers,
> Ole
>
> On 01/13/2016 07:24 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
> > Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.
> >
> > My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
> > [math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz 
> wrote:
> >
> >> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> >> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> >> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> >> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> >> reasons:
> >>
> >> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> >> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> >> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> >> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> >> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> >> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> >> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> >> has components with subcomponents).
> >>
> >> The downsides are
> >> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> >> us otherwise
> >> b) Migration / repackaging pain
> >> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> >> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
> >>
> >> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> >> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> >> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> >> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> >> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> >> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
> >>
> >> What do others think about this?
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>

Re: [math] TLP

[Thomas Neidhart]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Phil Steitz  wrote:

> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> reasons:
>
> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> has components with subcomponents).
>
> The downsides are
> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> us otherwise
> b) Migration / repackaging pain
> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
>
> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
>
> What do others think about this?
>

I think it would be the right move.

+1

Thomas

Re: [math] TLP

[Henri Yandell]

+1 (non-binding).

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Siegfried Göschl <
siegfried.goes...@it20one.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> +1 for going TLP (non-binding)
>
> And the luck for Luc :-)
>
> Siegfried Goeschl
>
>
>
> - Ursprüngliche Mail -
> Von: "Luc Maisonobe" 
> An: "Commons Developers List" 
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2016 11:58:47
> Betreff: Re: [math] TLP
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> Le 14/01/2016 01:50, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> > I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> > project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> > always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> > convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> > reasons:
> >
> > 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> > [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> > 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> > tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> > 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> > [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> > in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> > has components with subcomponents).
> >
> > The downsides are
> > a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> > us otherwise
> > b) Migration / repackaging pain
> > c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> > d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
> >
> > Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> > point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> > little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> > Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> > to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> > direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
> >
> > What do others think about this?
>
> I also think it is now time for us to grow up and leave parents home.
> [math] has become big, really big by now. It looks more like a
> standalone autonomous project than a shared component. Since a few
> years, it started to becomes a singular component, not really
> similar to the others. We almost monopolize the bandwidth on the
> mailing list, which can be painful for non-math developers.
>
> I think going TLP could also allow us to do somes things differently,
> perhaps experimenting on less stringent constraints about releases,
> mainly related to stuff that is not stabilized. We could also accept
> some ideas that were rejected up to now as not fitting in commons
> scope (higher level stuff like the expression parser that was submitted
> twice by different people if I remember well).
>
> So +1 for going TLP.
>
> best regards,
> Luc
>
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>

Re: [math] TLP

[Siegfried Göschl]

Hi folks,

+1 for going TLP (non-binding)

And the luck for Luc :-)

Siegfried Goeschl



- Ursprüngliche Mail -
Von: "Luc Maisonobe" 
An: "Commons Developers List" 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2016 11:58:47
Betreff: Re: [math] TLP

Hi Phil,

Le 14/01/2016 01:50, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> reasons:
> 
> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> has components with subcomponents).
> 
> The downsides are
> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> us otherwise
> b) Migration / repackaging pain
> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
> 
> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
> 
> What do others think about this? 

I also think it is now time for us to grow up and leave parents home.
[math] has become big, really big by now. It looks more like a
standalone autonomous project than a shared component. Since a few
years, it started to becomes a singular component, not really
similar to the others. We almost monopolize the bandwidth on the
mailing list, which can be painful for non-math developers.

I think going TLP could also allow us to do somes things differently,
perhaps experimenting on less stringent constraints about releases,
mainly related to stuff that is not stabilized. We could also accept
some ideas that were rejected up to now as not fitting in commons
scope (higher level stuff like the expression parser that was submitted
twice by different people if I remember well).

So +1 for going TLP.

best regards,
Luc

> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [math] TLP

[Luc Maisonobe]

Hi Phil,

Le 14/01/2016 01:50, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> reasons:
> 
> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> has components with subcomponents).
> 
> The downsides are
> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> us otherwise
> b) Migration / repackaging pain
> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
> 
> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
> 
> What do others think about this? 

I also think it is now time for us to grow up and leave parents home.
[math] has become big, really big by now. It looks more like a
standalone autonomous project than a shared component. Since a few
years, it started to becomes a singular component, not really
similar to the others. We almost monopolize the bandwidth on the
mailing list, which can be painful for non-math developers.

I think going TLP could also allow us to do somes things differently,
perhaps experimenting on less stringent constraints about releases,
mainly related to stuff that is not stabilized. We could also accept
some ideas that were rejected up to now as not fitting in commons
scope (higher level stuff like the expression parser that was submitted
twice by different people if I remember well).

So +1 for going TLP.

best regards,
Luc

> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [math] TLP

[Ole Ersoy]

... and it looks like watch notifications for these are now enabled.  Issues 
are still going through JIRA though.

Cheers,
Ole

On 01/13/2016 08:16 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:

Commons projects that use Git like Math and Lang are already mirrored on
GitHub,

See:

https://github.com/apache/commons-math
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang

Gary

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Ole Ersoy  wrote:


I love the idea.  I also think commons will get a lot more eye balls if it
gets all the repositories on github and enables the watch button as well as
github issues.

Cheers,
Ole


On 01/13/2016 07:24 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:


I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.

My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
[math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.

Gary

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz 
wrote:

I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level

project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
reasons:

0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
[math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
[math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
has components with subcomponents).

The downsides are
a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
us otherwise
b) Migration / repackaging pain
c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs

Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.

What do others think about this?

Phil


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org







-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [math] TLP

[Gary Gregory]

Commons projects that use Git like Math and Lang are already mirrored on
GitHub,

See:

https://github.com/apache/commons-math
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang

Gary

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Ole Ersoy  wrote:

> I love the idea.  I also think commons will get a lot more eye balls if it
> gets all the repositories on github and enables the watch button as well as
> github issues.
>
> Cheers,
> Ole
>
>
> On 01/13/2016 07:24 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
>> Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.
>>
>> My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
>> [math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
>>> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
>>> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
>>> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
>>> reasons:
>>>
>>> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
>>> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
>>> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
>>> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
>>> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
>>> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
>>> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
>>> has components with subcomponents).
>>>
>>> The downsides are
>>> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
>>> us otherwise
>>> b) Migration / repackaging pain
>>> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
>>> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
>>>
>>> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
>>> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
>>> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
>>> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
>>> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
>>> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
>>>
>>> What do others think about this?
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition

JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
Spring Batch in Action 
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Re: [math] TLP

[Ole Ersoy]

I love the idea.  I also think commons will get a lot more eye balls if it gets 
all the repositories on github and enables the watch button as well as github 
issues.

Cheers,
Ole

On 01/13/2016 07:24 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:

I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.

My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
[math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.

Gary

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz  wrote:


I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
reasons:

0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
[math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
[math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
has components with subcomponents).

The downsides are
a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
us otherwise
b) Migration / repackaging pain
c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs

Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.

What do others think about this?

Phil


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org







-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [math] TLP

[Gary Gregory]

I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.

My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
[math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.

Gary

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz  wrote:

> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> reasons:
>
> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> has components with subcomponents).
>
> The downsides are
> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> us otherwise
> b) Migration / repackaging pain
> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
>
> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
>
> What do others think about this?
>
> Phil
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition

JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
Spring Batch in Action 
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Re: [math] TLP

[James Carman]

+1
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:50 PM Phil Steitz  wrote:

> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> reasons:
>
> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> has components with subcomponents).
>
> The downsides are
> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> us otherwise
> b) Migration / repackaging pain
> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
>
> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
>
> What do others think about this?
>
> Phil
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>

[math] TLP

[Phil Steitz]

I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
reasons:

0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
[math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
[math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
has components with subcomponents).

The downsides are
a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
us otherwise
b) Migration / repackaging pain
c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs

Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.

What do others think about this? 

Phil


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Math TLP...

[Thomas Neidhart]

On 08/27/2013 08:23 PM, Oliver Heger wrote:
> Am 27.08.2013 15:57, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>> On 8/27/13 6:31 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>> It was mentioned the other day, so I thought I would propose a formal
>>> discussion.  Is it time to let [math] "leave the nest"?  I would doubt
>>> there are very many of us qualified to work on such a library here in
>>> Commons.  I have a degree in Mathematics, but I haven't used the
>>> advanced math in such a long time that I probably wouldn't even really
>>> know where to start.  Would it be easier to build a larger community
>>> around a new TLP?  Would it be more visible that way, as opposed to
>>> being tucked away in our little neck of the woods?
>>
>> Here is just one HO:
>>
>> We get big benefit from contributions from non-mathematicians in
>> [math].  In fact, I suspect that most of the core developers are not
>> mathematicians by training.  Sure, we need mathematical knowledge to
>> develop algorithms, but there is a boatload of stuff that we get
>> valuable help from other commons community members on.
>>
>> I am not sure TLP would make much of a difference in terms of
>> "visibility" and I don't think we are not really hurting for that,
>> IMO.  What we need is what other commons components need - committed
>> committers.  We have found them here and I am sure we will continue
>> to find more.
>>
>> One final comment is that some of us also help on other components,
>> so [math] is itself a source of volunteers for commons.
>>
>> So my HO is both [math] and commons are better off staying
>> together.  I understand fully; however, if those not interested in
>> [math] feel differently and would rather see us move to TLP.
> 
> My HO is also that [math] should stay here in commons. There is indeed
> synergy.

+1.

Personally, I would prefer commons-math to keep the prefix.
It's a nice community and we would surely miss a lot by going to TLP.

Thomas

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Math TLP...

[Rodion Efremov]

Don't you can conclude that matter, shut the f*** up, and enjoy the 
last days of summer? ;)


---
TIA, Rodion

James Carman писал 29.08.2013 05:46 PM:
To be clear, I don't really care one way or the other.  I just 
thought

it was probably good to have a formal discussion on the matter.  I'm
also a math geek, so I like reading the emails sometimes (sometimes
they're way over my head too).  It takes me back to my college days.
:)  I would probably subscribe to the mailing list even if it went
TLP.  I also like the fact that we are able to help with API design.
It sounds like most folks either don't mind if CM stays or don't want
it to stay.  More folks are free to contribute to the discussion, of
course, but at this point, it looks like we have somewhat of a
consensus.

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Gilles 
 wrote:

Hello.




James, it's good that you bring this up here. This is something 
I've been

thinking about lately.

I agree that the mathematical knowledge that seems to be necessary 
to dig
into [MATH] goes beyond what you learn in Computer Science courses 
at
university. I usually skip discussions about math but they don't 
bother me

or anything (like Luc has feared).

Several people have expressed that there have been valuable 
contributions
on design related decisions from people without a mathematical 
background.
I'm always open for some design related chatter but I find it hard 
to
filter those messages. Maybe an additional tag would help here? 
Something
to tell me, that the discussion is not related to mathematical 
theory like

[MATH][DESIGN] or [MATH][API] or something like that?



It's rarely clear-cut. Most often, API changes or new DESIGNs are
derived from
1. how one sees the mathematical field to be modelled
2. how extensive this model is going to be
3. how much of the domain is already modelled
4. how strongly we want to maintain compatibility




To cut a long story short: If [MATH] wants to stay here, let it 
stay here.

:-)



Thanks for the hospitality,[1]
Gilles

[1] Although, as I pointed out several times, we should always
take into account that CM is on several counts fairly
different from all the other Commons projects.
The most important aspect here is the "code maturity" level.




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Math TLP...

[James Carman]

To be clear, I don't really care one way or the other.  I just thought
it was probably good to have a formal discussion on the matter.  I'm
also a math geek, so I like reading the emails sometimes (sometimes
they're way over my head too).  It takes me back to my college days.
:)  I would probably subscribe to the mailing list even if it went
TLP.  I also like the fact that we are able to help with API design.
It sounds like most folks either don't mind if CM stays or don't want
it to stay.  More folks are free to contribute to the discussion, of
course, but at this point, it looks like we have somewhat of a
consensus.

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Gilles  wrote:
> Hello.
>
>
>>
>> James, it's good that you bring this up here. This is something I've been
>> thinking about lately.
>>
>> I agree that the mathematical knowledge that seems to be necessary to dig
>> into [MATH] goes beyond what you learn in Computer Science courses at
>> university. I usually skip discussions about math but they don't bother me
>> or anything (like Luc has feared).
>>
>> Several people have expressed that there have been valuable contributions
>> on design related decisions from people without a mathematical background.
>> I'm always open for some design related chatter but I find it hard to
>> filter those messages. Maybe an additional tag would help here? Something
>> to tell me, that the discussion is not related to mathematical theory like
>> [MATH][DESIGN] or [MATH][API] or something like that?
>
>
> It's rarely clear-cut. Most often, API changes or new DESIGNs are
> derived from
> 1. how one sees the mathematical field to be modelled
> 2. how extensive this model is going to be
> 3. how much of the domain is already modelled
> 4. how strongly we want to maintain compatibility
>
>
>>
>> To cut a long story short: If [MATH] wants to stay here, let it stay here.
>> :-)
>
>
> Thanks for the hospitality,[1]
> Gilles
>
> [1] Although, as I pointed out several times, we should always
> take into account that CM is on several counts fairly
> different from all the other Commons projects.
> The most important aspect here is the "code maturity" level.
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Math TLP...

[Gilles]

Hello.



James, it's good that you bring this up here. This is something I've 
been

thinking about lately.

I agree that the mathematical knowledge that seems to be necessary to 
dig

into [MATH] goes beyond what you learn in Computer Science courses at
university. I usually skip discussions about math but they don't 
bother me

or anything (like Luc has feared).

Several people have expressed that there have been valuable 
contributions
on design related decisions from people without a mathematical 
background.

I'm always open for some design related chatter but I find it hard to
filter those messages. Maybe an additional tag would help here? 
Something
to tell me, that the discussion is not related to mathematical theory 
like

[MATH][DESIGN] or [MATH][API] or something like that?


It's rarely clear-cut. Most often, API changes or new DESIGNs are
derived from
1. how one sees the mathematical field to be modelled
2. how extensive this model is going to be
3. how much of the domain is already modelled
4. how strongly we want to maintain compatibility



To cut a long story short: If [MATH] wants to stay here, let it stay 
here.

:-)


Thanks for the hospitality,[1]
Gilles

[1] Although, as I pointed out several times, we should always
take into account that CM is on several counts fairly
different from all the other Commons projects.
The most important aspect here is the "code maturity" level.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Math TLP...

[Benedikt Ritter]

Hi,

James, it's good that you bring this up here. This is something I've been
thinking about lately.

I agree that the mathematical knowledge that seems to be necessary to dig
into [MATH] goes beyond what you learn in Computer Science courses at
university. I usually skip discussions about math but they don't bother me
or anything (like Luc has feared).

Several people have expressed that there have been valuable contributions
on design related decisions from people without a mathematical background.
I'm always open for some design related chatter but I find it hard to
filter those messages. Maybe an additional tag would help here? Something
to tell me, that the discussion is not related to mathematical theory like
[MATH][DESIGN] or [MATH][API] or something like that?

To cut a long story short: If [MATH] wants to stay here, let it stay here.
:-)

Benedikt


2013/8/28 Luc Maisonobe 

> Le 27/08/2013 20:23, Oliver Heger a écrit :
> > Am 27.08.2013 15:57, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >> On 8/27/13 6:31 AM, James Carman wrote:
> >>> It was mentioned the other day, so I thought I would propose a formal
> >>> discussion.  Is it time to let [math] "leave the nest"?  I would doubt
> >>> there are very many of us qualified to work on such a library here in
> >>> Commons.  I have a degree in Mathematics, but I haven't used the
> >>> advanced math in such a long time that I probably wouldn't even really
> >>> know where to start.  Would it be easier to build a larger community
> >>> around a new TLP?  Would it be more visible that way, as opposed to
> >>> being tucked away in our little neck of the woods?
> >>
> >> Here is just one HO:
> >>
> >> We get big benefit from contributions from non-mathematicians in
> >> [math].  In fact, I suspect that most of the core developers are not
> >> mathematicians by training.  Sure, we need mathematical knowledge to
> >> develop algorithms, but there is a boatload of stuff that we get
> >> valuable help from other commons community members on.
> >>
> >> I am not sure TLP would make much of a difference in terms of
> >> "visibility" and I don't think we are not really hurting for that,
> >> IMO.  What we need is what other commons components need - committed
> >> committers.  We have found them here and I am sure we will continue
> >> to find more.
> >>
> >> One final comment is that some of us also help on other components,
> >> so [math] is itself a source of volunteers for commons.
> >>
> >> So my HO is both [math] and commons are better off staying
> >> together.  I understand fully; however, if those not interested in
> >> [math] feel differently and would rather see us move to TLP.
> >
> > My HO is also that [math] should stay here in commons. There is indeed
> > synergy.
>
> +1
>
>
> >
> > I use to skip the discussions requiring mathematical knowledge and
> > background, but the ones related to design and programming issues are
> > quite interesting.
>
> I hope we do not bother people too much with these discussions ... :-(
>
> Luc
>
> >
> > Oliver
> >
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter

Re: [DISCUSS] Math TLP...

[Luc Maisonobe]

Le 27/08/2013 20:23, Oliver Heger a écrit :
> Am 27.08.2013 15:57, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>> On 8/27/13 6:31 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>> It was mentioned the other day, so I thought I would propose a formal
>>> discussion.  Is it time to let [math] "leave the nest"?  I would doubt
>>> there are very many of us qualified to work on such a library here in
>>> Commons.  I have a degree in Mathematics, but I haven't used the
>>> advanced math in such a long time that I probably wouldn't even really
>>> know where to start.  Would it be easier to build a larger community
>>> around a new TLP?  Would it be more visible that way, as opposed to
>>> being tucked away in our little neck of the woods?
>>
>> Here is just one HO:
>>
>> We get big benefit from contributions from non-mathematicians in
>> [math].  In fact, I suspect that most of the core developers are not
>> mathematicians by training.  Sure, we need mathematical knowledge to
>> develop algorithms, but there is a boatload of stuff that we get
>> valuable help from other commons community members on.
>>
>> I am not sure TLP would make much of a difference in terms of
>> "visibility" and I don't think we are not really hurting for that,
>> IMO.  What we need is what other commons components need - committed
>> committers.  We have found them here and I am sure we will continue
>> to find more.
>>
>> One final comment is that some of us also help on other components,
>> so [math] is itself a source of volunteers for commons.
>>
>> So my HO is both [math] and commons are better off staying
>> together.  I understand fully; however, if those not interested in
>> [math] feel differently and would rather see us move to TLP.
> 
> My HO is also that [math] should stay here in commons. There is indeed
> synergy.

+1


> 
> I use to skip the discussions requiring mathematical knowledge and
> background, but the ones related to design and programming issues are
> quite interesting.

I hope we do not bother people too much with these discussions ... :-(

Luc

> 
> Oliver
> 
>>
>> Phil
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>>
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Math TLP...

[Oliver Heger]

Am 27.08.2013 15:57, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> On 8/27/13 6:31 AM, James Carman wrote:
>> It was mentioned the other day, so I thought I would propose a formal
>> discussion.  Is it time to let [math] "leave the nest"?  I would doubt
>> there are very many of us qualified to work on such a library here in
>> Commons.  I have a degree in Mathematics, but I haven't used the
>> advanced math in such a long time that I probably wouldn't even really
>> know where to start.  Would it be easier to build a larger community
>> around a new TLP?  Would it be more visible that way, as opposed to
>> being tucked away in our little neck of the woods?
> 
> Here is just one HO:
> 
> We get big benefit from contributions from non-mathematicians in
> [math].  In fact, I suspect that most of the core developers are not
> mathematicians by training.  Sure, we need mathematical knowledge to
> develop algorithms, but there is a boatload of stuff that we get
> valuable help from other commons community members on.
> 
> I am not sure TLP would make much of a difference in terms of
> "visibility" and I don't think we are not really hurting for that,
> IMO.  What we need is what other commons components need - committed
> committers.  We have found them here and I am sure we will continue
> to find more.
> 
> One final comment is that some of us also help on other components,
> so [math] is itself a source of volunteers for commons.
> 
> So my HO is both [math] and commons are better off staying
> together.  I understand fully; however, if those not interested in
> [math] feel differently and would rather see us move to TLP.

My HO is also that [math] should stay here in commons. There is indeed
synergy.

I use to skip the discussions requiring mathematical knowledge and
background, but the ones related to design and programming issues are
quite interesting.

Oliver

> 
> Phil
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Math TLP...

[Phil Steitz]

On 8/27/13 6:31 AM, James Carman wrote:
> It was mentioned the other day, so I thought I would propose a formal
> discussion.  Is it time to let [math] "leave the nest"?  I would doubt
> there are very many of us qualified to work on such a library here in
> Commons.  I have a degree in Mathematics, but I haven't used the
> advanced math in such a long time that I probably wouldn't even really
> know where to start.  Would it be easier to build a larger community
> around a new TLP?  Would it be more visible that way, as opposed to
> being tucked away in our little neck of the woods?

Here is just one HO:

We get big benefit from contributions from non-mathematicians in
[math].  In fact, I suspect that most of the core developers are not
mathematicians by training.  Sure, we need mathematical knowledge to
develop algorithms, but there is a boatload of stuff that we get
valuable help from other commons community members on.

I am not sure TLP would make much of a difference in terms of
"visibility" and I don't think we are not really hurting for that,
IMO.  What we need is what other commons components need - committed
committers.  We have found them here and I am sure we will continue
to find more.

One final comment is that some of us also help on other components,
so [math] is itself a source of volunteers for commons.

So my HO is both [math] and commons are better off staying
together.  I understand fully; however, if those not interested in
[math] feel differently and would rather see us move to TLP.

Phil
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Math TLP...

[Gary Gregory]

Hi All:

I'm only a casual [math] user (we use [math] at work for some *very* simple
things), but I hope that we, the wider [commons] community, has been
beneficial in sharing expertise in Java, design, and other non-mathematics
but programming related issues. That whole thread about exceptions a while
back for example.

I'm note sure what difference having one less dot in the domain would do
for you. I can't see it changing how Google would answer queries
differently.

This would just be a marketing move IMO with a potential loss of shared
expertise from [commons].

I won't stop it but I would think it sad to see it go ;)

Gary


On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:31 AM, James Carman wrote:

> It was mentioned the other day, so I thought I would propose a formal
> discussion.  Is it time to let [math] "leave the nest"?  I would doubt
> there are very many of us qualified to work on such a library here in
> Commons.  I have a degree in Mathematics, but I haven't used the
> advanced math in such a long time that I probably wouldn't even really
> know where to start.  Would it be easier to build a larger community
> around a new TLP?  Would it be more visible that way, as opposed to
> being tucked away in our little neck of the woods?
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
Spring Batch in Action 
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

[DISCUSS] Math TLP...

[James Carman]

It was mentioned the other day, so I thought I would propose a formal
discussion.  Is it time to let [math] "leave the nest"?  I would doubt
there are very many of us qualified to work on such a library here in
Commons.  I have a degree in Mathematics, but I haven't used the
advanced math in such a long time that I probably wouldn't even really
know where to start.  Would it be easier to build a larger community
around a new TLP?  Would it be more visible that way, as opposed to
being tucked away in our little neck of the woods?

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [math] Apache Math TLP? [WAS Re: [math] top-level package name]

[Henri Yandell]

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
 wrote:
> (apologies for jumping in half way through)
>
> luc.maison...@free.fr wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Considering the ongoing discussion in another thread, the current changes 
>> that have been done on
>> [math] for the last months belong to the major changes with large 
>> incompatibilities with previous versions.
>> We have already decided that the version number will be 2.0 to acknowledge 
>> that. I know of at least one big
>> international research project that uses commons-math 1.2 and will switch to 
>> 2.0 when it will be published.
>> They have already faced compatibility problems recently (two days ago).
>>
>> Should we change the top level package name from org.apache.commons.math to 
>> org.apache.commons.math2 ?
>
> why not org.apache.math ;-)
>
> maybe the time and interest levels are now right to consider a TLP...

+1 to Math remaining in Commons.

However - also +1 to considering org.apache.math. No reason not to
imo. Subprojects have long been able to leave their umbrella name out.
Thus we were org.apache.commons and not org.apache.jakarta.

Hen

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [math] Apache Math TLP? [WAS Re: [math] top-level package name]

[Edward J. Yoon]

That's a very good idea IMO.

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
 wrote:
> (apologies for jumping in half way through)
>
> luc.maison...@free.fr wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Considering the ongoing discussion in another thread, the current changes 
>> that have been done on
>> [math] for the last months belong to the major changes with large 
>> incompatibilities with previous versions.
>> We have already decided that the version number will be 2.0 to acknowledge 
>> that. I know of at least one big
>> international research project that uses commons-math 1.2 and will switch to 
>> 2.0 when it will be published.
>> They have already faced compatibility problems recently (two days ago).
>>
>> Should we change the top level package name from org.apache.commons.math to 
>> org.apache.commons.math2 ?
>
> why not org.apache.math ;-)
>
> maybe the time and interest levels are now right to consider a TLP...
>
> - robert
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>



-- 
Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon @ NHN, corp.
edwardy...@apache.org
http://blog.udanax.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [math] Apache Math TLP? [WAS Re: [math] top-level package name]

[Phil Steitz]

Luc Maisonobe wrote:

Rahul Akolkar a écrit :
  

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
 wrote:


(apologies for jumping in half way through)

luc.maison...@free.fr wrote:
  

Hello,

Considering the ongoing discussion in another thread, the current changes that 
have been done on
[math] for the last months belong to the major changes with large 
incompatibilities with previous versions.
We have already decided that the version number will be 2.0 to acknowledge 
that. I know of at least one big
international research project that uses commons-math 1.2 and will switch to 
2.0 when it will be published.
They have already faced compatibility problems recently (two days ago).

Should we change the top level package name from org.apache.commons.math to 
org.apache.commons.math2 ?


why not org.apache.math ;-)

maybe the time and interest levels are now right to consider a TLP...

  



I'd support such a resolution if and when the [math] developers deem it fit.



This is tempting ...

The pros:
There is currently some momentum in [math] and several people seem
interested. There are also several other mathematical projects floating
around and apparently ready to cooperate. The component is becoming
quite large by now and its focus slightly shifts away from the rest of
the commons components.

The cons:
Maybe the current interest will vanish once 2.0 is out. A top level
project is probably more administrative work than simply resting in the
comfort of the commons.

What do other people think ?
  

Until they kick us out, I say stay here ;)

Somewhat more seriously,  I like staying in commons for three reasons

1) We get good advice, help on administrivia,  and committed committers 
showing up now and then.  This is the core benefit that all commons 
components share.
2) While we are getting some nice "long tail" contributions in the runup 
to 2.0, I don't think we have critical "committed committer" mass to 
maintain a TLP right now.
3) Diffusion and umbrella-ism is a big risk if we go TLP.  While we have 
grown a substantial codebase here, it is still manageable as a single 
maven project, delivering a single, self-contained 100% Java jar.  I 
would like to hold onto that.  I guess it is possible for that to be a 
subproject of a broader umbrella, but I am not personally energized by 
the umbrella idea and I would rather live in a place that is very good 
at managing java components than a new umbrella. 


Of course, this is all your fault, Robert (he he)
(For those not around at the time, Robert created the monster that is 
now [math])


Phil

Luc

  

-Rahul




- robert


  

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

  



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [math] Apache Math TLP? [WAS Re: [math] top-level package name]

[Luc Maisonobe]

Rahul Akolkar a écrit :
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>  wrote:
>> (apologies for jumping in half way through)
>>
>> luc.maison...@free.fr wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Considering the ongoing discussion in another thread, the current changes 
>>> that have been done on
>>> [math] for the last months belong to the major changes with large 
>>> incompatibilities with previous versions.
>>> We have already decided that the version number will be 2.0 to acknowledge 
>>> that. I know of at least one big
>>> international research project that uses commons-math 1.2 and will switch 
>>> to 2.0 when it will be published.
>>> They have already faced compatibility problems recently (two days ago).
>>>
>>> Should we change the top level package name from org.apache.commons.math to 
>>> org.apache.commons.math2 ?
>> why not org.apache.math ;-)
>>
>> maybe the time and interest levels are now right to consider a TLP...
>>
> 
> 
> I'd support such a resolution if and when the [math] developers deem it fit.

This is tempting ...

The pros:
There is currently some momentum in [math] and several people seem
interested. There are also several other mathematical projects floating
around and apparently ready to cooperate. The component is becoming
quite large by now and its focus slightly shifts away from the rest of
the commons components.

The cons:
Maybe the current interest will vanish once 2.0 is out. A top level
project is probably more administrative work than simply resting in the
comfort of the commons.

What do other people think ?

Luc

> 
> -Rahul
> 
> 
>> - robert
>>
>>
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [math] Apache Math TLP? [WAS Re: [math] top-level package name]

[Rahul Akolkar]

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
 wrote:
> (apologies for jumping in half way through)
>
> luc.maison...@free.fr wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Considering the ongoing discussion in another thread, the current changes 
>> that have been done on
>> [math] for the last months belong to the major changes with large 
>> incompatibilities with previous versions.
>> We have already decided that the version number will be 2.0 to acknowledge 
>> that. I know of at least one big
>> international research project that uses commons-math 1.2 and will switch to 
>> 2.0 when it will be published.
>> They have already faced compatibility problems recently (two days ago).
>>
>> Should we change the top level package name from org.apache.commons.math to 
>> org.apache.commons.math2 ?
>
> why not org.apache.math ;-)
>
> maybe the time and interest levels are now right to consider a TLP...
>


I'd support such a resolution if and when the [math] developers deem it fit.

-Rahul


> - robert
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

[math] Apache Math TLP? [WAS Re: [math] top-level package name]

[Robert Burrell Donkin]

(apologies for jumping in half way through)

luc.maison...@free.fr wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Considering the ongoing discussion in another thread, the current changes 
> that have been done on 
> [math] for the last months belong to the major changes with large 
> incompatibilities with previous versions. 
> We have already decided that the version number will be 2.0 to acknowledge 
> that. I know of at least one big 
> international research project that uses commons-math 1.2 and will switch to 
> 2.0 when it will be published. 
> They have already faced compatibility problems recently (two days ago).
> 
> Should we change the top level package name from org.apache.commons.math to 
> org.apache.commons.math2 ?

why not org.apache.math ;-)

maybe the time and interest levels are now right to consider a TLP...

- robert


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org