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

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.

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

Re: [Math] Getting things done

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 > > *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Barnhill wrote: > There has been a lot of

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 Wiedmann wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like an attempt to put an end to all those

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.

[Math] Getting things done

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.)