Re: [Math] Getting things done
Hello Mike, michael.brzustow...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Math3 devs, > > Is there a consensus on the future of Math3? Definately. Not necessarily as Math3 for mid-term, since the plan was to establish a Math TLP with the code base of Math 3/4 minus the code for the three new components. > I rely on the Linear Algebra > package and also Stats. > Is there major changes planned for those? I have heard some mentions of > refactoring going on, > but not sure how much would change to the API ... or if it's just > implementation details. Actually I have no knowledge about the current state of the code, esp. what happened between Math 3 and 4 for the areas you've mentioned here. > I do hope to contribute some code (probably in linalg, stats, > machine-learning) when some current > side projects clear up and I have time to dedicate. Any help is welcome. The future of Math needs an active community caring for the individual parts of the code. Cheers. Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [Math] Getting things done
Hi Math3 devs, Is there a consensus on the future of Math3? I rely on the Linear Algebra package and also Stats. Is there major changes planned for those? I have heard some mentions of refactoring going on, but not sure how much would change to the API ... or if it's just implementation details. I do hope to contribute some code (probably in linalg, stats, machine-learning) when some current side projects clear up and I have time to dedicate. Thanx, Mike Brzustowicz On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Jörg Schaiblewrote: > Brent Worden wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Jörg Schaible > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Gilles, > >> > >> Gilles wrote: > >> > >> [snip] > >> > >> > Indeed, it will be much more productive to let the new(bie) team > >> > experiment within Commons by creating the following new components: > >> > * Commons RNG > >> > * Commons AltMath > >> > * Commons MathTools > >> > > >> > The first one, pretty much, was accepted. Amazing. > >> > >> > >> Not yet, only two binding votes. However, you're able to change this ;-) > >> > >> > > Not to sidetrack this discussion but, I believe there were three binding > > votes: > > - Benedikt Ritter > > - Emmanuel Bourg > > - Brent Worden > > You're right. Actually I missed your vote. > > Cheers, > Jörg > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
Re: [Math] Getting things done
Brent Worden wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Jörg Schaible> wrote: > >> Hi Gilles, >> >> Gilles wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> > Indeed, it will be much more productive to let the new(bie) team >> > experiment within Commons by creating the following new components: >> > * Commons RNG >> > * Commons AltMath >> > * Commons MathTools >> > >> > The first one, pretty much, was accepted. Amazing. >> >> >> Not yet, only two binding votes. However, you're able to change this ;-) >> >> > Not to sidetrack this discussion but, I believe there were three binding > votes: > - Benedikt Ritter > - Emmanuel Bourg > - Brent Worden You're right. Actually I missed your vote. Cheers, Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [Math] Getting things done
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Jörg Schaiblewrote: > Hi Gilles, > > Gilles wrote: > > [snip] > > > Indeed, it will be much more productive to let the new(bie) team > > experiment within Commons by creating the following new components: > > * Commons RNG > > * Commons AltMath > > * Commons MathTools > > > > The first one, pretty much, was accepted. Amazing. > > > Not yet, only two binding votes. However, you're able to change this ;-) > > Not to sidetrack this discussion but, I believe there were three binding votes: - Benedikt Ritter - Emmanuel Bourg - Brent Worden
Re: [Math] Getting things done
Le 23/06/2016 à 19:20, Jörg Schaible a écrit : > Hmm. Here I got lost. Do you now try to keep the "unsupported" parts in CM4 > or leave them out as proposed two lines above? Well, that really depends on the usefulness of the parts considered. For example even if we have no developer expert in Fourier transforms, considering that it's a widely used algorithm that is already well covered by the unit tests, I think we should keep it. On the other hand, an unsupported part that is rarely useful could be dropped. > As long as we keep the name "CM" we make promises to existing users > and it is difficult to drop something. I don't see this as an issue, users relying on the removed parts can stick to CM 3.x (or switch to Hipparchus). Emmanuel Bourg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [Math] Getting things done
Hi Emmanuel, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 23/06/2016 à 14:33, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit : > >> The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree. >> That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that >> everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In particular, >> there must not be any serious opposition later on. If you'd like to >> oppose: Please do so here, and now. > > Thank you for proposing a plan Jochen. I'm certainly in the "I can live > with that" category, but I'm a bit skeptical about the outcome. Neither > the incubator nor a TLP sound viable to me at this point, because the > community around commons-math hasn't recovered from the loss of its > historical contributors. I'd would rather incubate the Math TLP within > Commons until more contributors like Eric join the party. > > Because the best way to attract developers is to release something > useful, I'd suggest releasing as soon as possible something derived from > the current Commons Math 4 base: > - commons-random: with the random number generators > - commons-math4: with the core math utilities (fractions, complex, > fastmath, stats, FFT, etc) and leaving out the orphaned parts judged too > specialized like the genetic algorithms. > > The core commons-math4 may contain "unsupported" parts as long as they > are properly covered by unit tests and not too specialized. Hmm. Here I got lost. Do you now try to keep the "unsupported" parts in CM4 or leave them out as proposed two lines above? As long as we keep the name "CM" we make promises to existing users and it is difficult to drop something. One benefit of Gilles smaller components is their specialized target. We as PMC failed to realize that CM had been a dumping ground in the last 10 years (see Dimitri's mail) and that aside the real common math utilities we also collected very specialized stuff that is hardly used by anyone and that should have never been added to *Commons* Math (AFAICS the latest released jar is the threefold size compared to any other Commons component). If we keep "CM" we might end up in the same situation again. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [Math] Getting things done
Hi Gilles, Gilles wrote: [snip] > Indeed, it will be much more productive to let the new(bie) team > experiment within Commons by creating the following new components: > * Commons RNG > * Commons AltMath > * Commons MathTools > > The first one, pretty much, was accepted. Amazing. Not yet, only two binding votes. However, you're able to change this ;-) Actually RNG is the component with the least strings, because it has never been released and creates no binary compatibility problems. Simply remove the code from CM4 and anything is well. > The second one is more fuzzy for some people, but I'll have to stress > again that it's probably because they should have a look at the code! > It will be a zero dependency component (which I had referred to as > "Standard math functions" in the vote thread) with common > functionality, > useful beyond "math-centric" (whatever that means) applications. > > The last one is a smaller "Commons Math", i.e. stripped of > functionality > unsupported at the time of release. > It is _also_ a new component to clearly separate it from Commons Math, > so that users have an upgrade path; or at least, they will be able to > easily figure out what has become unsupported. > If new contributors come in order to fill the gap, more codes can be > transferred to "MathTools".[2] > [At the same time "Commons Math" itself stays clean of packages > reordering, renaming or removal, so that if and when someone wants to > restart from there, it's trivial.] > > I see this proposal as a compromise, deferring(!) further splits of > complex and rational" numbers functionality, while allowing to have a > taste of the the advantages and drawbacks of full modularization (i.e. > individual components). Still, we have not yet cleared what it means to the existing CM to break these out, since the code to extract *has been* released (see also Benedikt's question). It's still a "proper" component unless we move it into dormant and/or hand it over to a TLP. IMHO the best way out would be a CM 3.7 release (based on latest 3.x) with all removed classes marked as deprecated. Then you're free to drop the code in trunk and a future Math TLP might concentrate on specialized mathematical algorithms and problems that do not have such a wide audience. And who knows, maybe the Hipparchus fork will use these new components also in the long run and concentrate themselves on the "interesting" stuff. Cheers, Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [Math] Getting things done
Hello. On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:33:05 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: Hi, I'd like an attempt to put an end to all those discussions regarding Commons Math (CM). That means, in particular, that we find an common agreement on a course of action. So, here's a suggestion (might as well call it an offer, because acceptance would mean a lot of work on my side) 1.) I'll write a proposal to move CM to the Incubator. 2.) We'll wait for the Incubators decision. If the Incubator accepts CM. 3.) If the Incubator rejects CM, then I'd start another formal TLP vote. 4.) If the board accepts the TLP: Very well. 5.) If not: So what. Now we know, at least. In either case: At the end of the procedure, we'd have clarity. This will allow us to focus on a smaller set of issues (technical), and we can go on. The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree. That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In particular, there must not be any serious opposition later on. If you'd like to oppose: Please do so here, and now. Thanks for a constructive proposal. But as you indicated, this means a lot of administrative work whose ultimate result is far from being certain. In particular, people have quite clearly pointed out that the incubator * is a place for community building * not a place to rethink a code base while we have * a community (small perhaps, but sufficient for the code we want to release and are able to support), but * no viable (IMO) project for salvaging the currently "unsupported" code.[1] If Commons reject its own code (IOW does not accept a new component, despite its potential usefulness, as noted by Eric), then the next alternative would be a TLP proposal (as attempted by James). Because in the TLP, we'll be allowed to release components according to their individual level of support (which means that well-tested code can be released ASAP while in the incubator path, it might never be). Obviously, this would necessitates that the Commons PMC accepts to let go of the Commons Math code base without any strings attached. So... I agree with Dave. ;-) And partially with Emmanuel. Indeed, it will be much more productive to let the new(bie) team experiment within Commons by creating the following new components: * Commons RNG * Commons AltMath * Commons MathTools The first one, pretty much, was accepted. Amazing. The second one is more fuzzy for some people, but I'll have to stress again that it's probably because they should have a look at the code! It will be a zero dependency component (which I had referred to as "Standard math functions" in the vote thread) with common functionality, useful beyond "math-centric" (whatever that means) applications. The last one is a smaller "Commons Math", i.e. stripped of functionality unsupported at the time of release. It is _also_ a new component to clearly separate it from Commons Math, so that users have an upgrade path; or at least, they will be able to easily figure out what has become unsupported. If new contributors come in order to fill the gap, more codes can be transferred to "MathTools".[2] [At the same time "Commons Math" itself stays clean of packages reordering, renaming or removal, so that if and when someone wants to restart from there, it's trivial.] I see this proposal as a compromise, deferring(!) further splits of complex and rational" numbers functionality, while allowing to have a taste of the the advantages and drawbacks of full modularization (i.e. individual components). We do this; if the result suits the PMC, we go on; if not: "Now we know, at least." Do you agree? If not, please let us know why. Regards, Gilles [1] To become a valuable project, the proposal probably needs a "back to basics" study (as noted by Dimitri) in order to generate a consistent initiative, and not just another fork encumbered with all the liabilities of the past and no experts to compensate for them. [2] Of course, the naming is illustrative, subject to a VOTE. ;-) Thanks, Jochen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [Math] Getting things done
Thank you for the clarification. I like the idea of a commons-math base component, suiting the commons mission. If commons math were transmuted to a large scale new math project, that competes with Hipparchus. Both projects are forks of the same scope and at the same time. But in the Hipparchus case, the decisions are made by the people who contribute to the library, and further, there are (I gather) more very experienced contributors. Here the decisions on math are mostly not made by people who contribute to math, and the experienced contributors have dwindled. I'm sorry but I think the reality is that such a project won't compete. Certainly if I had to choose, I would probably prefer the other fork, though in reality without commons-math I would just move my energies to GNU Octave and ImageJ. Gilles does not think that the new project will compete either. In response, Gilles is trying to reshape commons-math in a way that will have an important and unique place in the world and attract users, uses and support. This is a code base that interweaves successfully with the commons mission and code base, with the potential for growth in the form of small auxiliary modules driven by enthusiasts. A base commons-math could draw broad support from the community for some relatively easy to maintain components that really are in common use as the enthusiasts come and go. Personally, this suits my interests which are not extravagantly mathematical. I really just want to smooth the terrain between commons, ImageJ, GNU Octave, and JoCL to maximize my open source scientific computing pleasure. I'm just as likely to contribute to commons-lang if that aids these goals. I can only speak for myself of course. Maybe four simultaneous votes was not the smoothest way to continue but it allows Gilles to get going, while the iron is hot. No one has voted -1 so perhaps Gilles should start the branch and let us know what it is. I don't anticipate posting any more comments on these matters, but if Gilles starts a new branch I will show up for work. Eric On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Ralph Goerswrote: > My answer would be slightly different. It doesn’t. All topics related to > the code should be deferred until we know what is happening with the > community. > > Ralph > > > On Jun 23, 2016, at 5:50 AM, Jochen Wiedmann > wrote: > > > > It doesn't, at least in my opinion. If the future Math project decides > > to have a "base" component: Very well. But, if the other components > > are elsewhere: Why should the base stay at Commons? > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Eric Barnhill > wrote: > >> There has been a lot of support in the discussions for, as Emmanuel put > it, > >> a "base commons-math > >> component". > >> > >> Where does that factor into this proposal? > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann < > jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I'd like an attempt to put an end to all those discussions regarding > >>> Commons Math (CM). That means, in particular, that we find an common > >>> agreement on a course of action. So, here's a suggestion (might as > >>> well call it an offer, because acceptance would mean a lot of work on > >>> my side) > >>> > >>> 1.) I'll write a proposal to move CM to the Incubator. > >>> 2.) We'll wait for the Incubators decision. If the Incubator accepts > CM. > >>> 3.) If the Incubator rejects CM, then I'd start another formal TLP > vote. > >>> 4.) If the board accepts the TLP: Very well. > >>> 5.) If not: So what. Now we know, at least. > >>> > >>> In either case: At the end of the procedure, we'd have clarity. This > >>> will allow us to focus on a smaller set of issues (technical), and we > >>> can go on. > >>> > >>> The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree. > >>> That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that > >>> everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In particular, > >>> there must not be any serious opposition later on. If you'd like to > >>> oppose: Please do so here, and now. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Jochen > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" > >>> > >>> > >>> > http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg > >>> > >>> - > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > -- > > The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" > > > > > http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional
Re: [Math] Getting things done
+1 - Tell me how I can help. I like the idea that we contribute a (or some) component(s) back to commons, but I think it makes a lot of sense to just work towards community future state before concerning ourselves with code future state, as that will happen naturally over time. -Rob > On Jun 23, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Jochen Wiedmann> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'd like an attempt to put an end to all those discussions regarding > Commons Math (CM). That means, in particular, that we find an common > agreement on a course of action. So, here's a suggestion (might as > well call it an offer, because acceptance would mean a lot of work on > my side) > > 1.) I'll write a proposal to move CM to the Incubator. > 2.) We'll wait for the Incubators decision. If the Incubator accepts CM. > 3.) If the Incubator rejects CM, then I'd start another formal TLP vote. > 4.) If the board accepts the TLP: Very well. > 5.) If not: So what. Now we know, at least. > > In either case: At the end of the procedure, we'd have clarity. This > will allow us to focus on a smaller set of issues (technical), and we > can go on. > > The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree. > That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that > everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In particular, > there must not be any serious opposition later on. If you'd like to > oppose: Please do so here, and now. > > Thanks, > > Jochen > > > > -- > The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" > > http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg > > - > 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] Getting things done
Le 23/06/2016 à 14:33, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit : > The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree. > That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that > everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In particular, > there must not be any serious opposition later on. If you'd like to > oppose: Please do so here, and now. Thank you for proposing a plan Jochen. I'm certainly in the "I can live with that" category, but I'm a bit skeptical about the outcome. Neither the incubator nor a TLP sound viable to me at this point, because the community around commons-math hasn't recovered from the loss of its historical contributors. I'd would rather incubate the Math TLP within Commons until more contributors like Eric join the party. Because the best way to attract developers is to release something useful, I'd suggest releasing as soon as possible something derived from the current Commons Math 4 base: - commons-random: with the random number generators - commons-math4: with the core math utilities (fractions, complex, fastmath, stats, FFT, etc) and leaving out the orphaned parts judged too specialized like the genetic algorithms. The core commons-math4 may contain "unsupported" parts as long as they are properly covered by unit tests and not too specialized. Does this sound like an acceptable compromise? Emmanuel Bourg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [Math] Getting things done
I realize there are good intentions here. But what the common theme of all these email chains, when you filter out the disagreements, is, "deferred until" If 'deferring' is the only thing we can agree on, i think something is broken with the system. IMO let the doers do. Clearly Gilles is the main driver of change. It appears he now has some people who will help at least to some extent, but he has shown over last half year (at least) that he will be the primary one to move the code base. I would just have Gilles (and friends) go ahead and make the changes he feels are the right direction. If he were to take an inordinate dump in the code base (he won't), or walk away with it half-baked (he won't), the next person along, if ever, just can go back to an earlier branch point and start again. But we are supposed to be a meritocracy, not an oligarchy. It feels much like that later at the moment. dave On 06/23/2016 08:53 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: My answer would be slightly different. It doesn’t. All topics related to the code should be deferred until we know what is happening with the community. Ralph On Jun 23, 2016, at 5:50 AM, Jochen Wiedmannwrote: It doesn't, at least in my opinion. If the future Math project decides to have a "base" component: Very well. But, if the other components are elsewhere: Why should the base stay at Commons? On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Eric Barnhill wrote: There has been a lot of support in the discussions for, as Emmanuel put it, a "base commons-math component". Where does that factor into this proposal? On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: Hi, I'd like an attempt to put an end to all those discussions regarding Commons Math (CM). That means, in particular, that we find an common agreement on a course of action. So, here's a suggestion (might as well call it an offer, because acceptance would mean a lot of work on my side) 1.) I'll write a proposal to move CM to the Incubator. 2.) We'll wait for the Incubators decision. If the Incubator accepts CM. 3.) If the Incubator rejects CM, then I'd start another formal TLP vote. 4.) If the board accepts the TLP: Very well. 5.) If not: So what. Now we know, at least. In either case: At the end of the procedure, we'd have clarity. This will allow us to focus on a smaller set of issues (technical), and we can go on. The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree. That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In particular, there must not be any serious opposition later on. If you'd like to oppose: Please do so here, and now. Thanks, Jochen -- The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org -- The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg - 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] Getting things done
My answer would be slightly different. It doesn’t. All topics related to the code should be deferred until we know what is happening with the community. Ralph > On Jun 23, 2016, at 5:50 AM, Jochen Wiedmann> wrote: > > It doesn't, at least in my opinion. If the future Math project decides > to have a "base" component: Very well. But, if the other components > are elsewhere: Why should the base stay at Commons? > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Eric Barnhill wrote: >> There has been a lot of support in the discussions for, as Emmanuel put it, >> a "base commons-math >> component". >> >> Where does that factor into this proposal? >> >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'd like an attempt to put an end to all those discussions regarding >>> Commons Math (CM). That means, in particular, that we find an common >>> agreement on a course of action. So, here's a suggestion (might as >>> well call it an offer, because acceptance would mean a lot of work on >>> my side) >>> >>> 1.) I'll write a proposal to move CM to the Incubator. >>> 2.) We'll wait for the Incubators decision. If the Incubator accepts CM. >>> 3.) If the Incubator rejects CM, then I'd start another formal TLP vote. >>> 4.) If the board accepts the TLP: Very well. >>> 5.) If not: So what. Now we know, at least. >>> >>> In either case: At the end of the procedure, we'd have clarity. This >>> will allow us to focus on a smaller set of issues (technical), and we >>> can go on. >>> >>> The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree. >>> That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that >>> everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In particular, >>> there must not be any serious opposition later on. If you'd like to >>> oppose: Please do so here, and now. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jochen >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" >>> >>> >>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> > > > > -- > The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" > > http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg > > - > 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] Getting things done
It doesn't, at least in my opinion. If the future Math project decides to have a "base" component: Very well. But, if the other components are elsewhere: Why should the base stay at Commons? On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Eric Barnhillwrote: > There has been a lot of support in the discussions for, as Emmanuel put it, > a "base commons-math > component". > > Where does that factor into this proposal? > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'd like an attempt to put an end to all those discussions regarding >> Commons Math (CM). That means, in particular, that we find an common >> agreement on a course of action. So, here's a suggestion (might as >> well call it an offer, because acceptance would mean a lot of work on >> my side) >> >> 1.) I'll write a proposal to move CM to the Incubator. >> 2.) We'll wait for the Incubators decision. If the Incubator accepts CM. >> 3.) If the Incubator rejects CM, then I'd start another formal TLP vote. >> 4.) If the board accepts the TLP: Very well. >> 5.) If not: So what. Now we know, at least. >> >> In either case: At the end of the procedure, we'd have clarity. This >> will allow us to focus on a smaller set of issues (technical), and we >> can go on. >> >> The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree. >> That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that >> everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In particular, >> there must not be any serious opposition later on. If you'd like to >> oppose: Please do so here, and now. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jochen >> >> >> >> -- >> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" >> >> >> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> -- The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [Math] Getting things done
There has been a lot of support in the discussions for, as Emmanuel put it, a "base commons-math component". Where does that factor into this proposal? On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmannwrote: > Hi, > > I'd like an attempt to put an end to all those discussions regarding > Commons Math (CM). That means, in particular, that we find an common > agreement on a course of action. So, here's a suggestion (might as > well call it an offer, because acceptance would mean a lot of work on > my side) > > 1.) I'll write a proposal to move CM to the Incubator. > 2.) We'll wait for the Incubators decision. If the Incubator accepts CM. > 3.) If the Incubator rejects CM, then I'd start another formal TLP vote. > 4.) If the board accepts the TLP: Very well. > 5.) If not: So what. Now we know, at least. > > In either case: At the end of the procedure, we'd have clarity. This > will allow us to focus on a smaller set of issues (technical), and we > can go on. > > The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree. > That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that > everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In particular, > there must not be any serious opposition later on. If you'd like to > oppose: Please do so here, and now. > > Thanks, > > Jochen > > > > -- > The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" > > > http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
Re: [Math] Getting things done
+1 - Go for it! Ralph > On Jun 23, 2016, at 5:33 AM, Jochen Wiedmann> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'd like an attempt to put an end to all those discussions regarding > Commons Math (CM). That means, in particular, that we find an common > agreement on a course of action. So, here's a suggestion (might as > well call it an offer, because acceptance would mean a lot of work on > my side) > > 1.) I'll write a proposal to move CM to the Incubator. > 2.) We'll wait for the Incubators decision. If the Incubator accepts CM. > 3.) If the Incubator rejects CM, then I'd start another formal TLP vote. > 4.) If the board accepts the TLP: Very well. > 5.) If not: So what. Now we know, at least. > > In either case: At the end of the procedure, we'd have clarity. This > will allow us to focus on a smaller set of issues (technical), and we > can go on. > > The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree. > That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that > everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In particular, > there must not be any serious opposition later on. If you'd like to > oppose: Please do so here, and now. > > Thanks, > > Jochen > > > > -- > The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" > > http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg > > - > 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