+1 Looks good to me.
Gilles wrote: > Hello. > > [Time for a new episode in our "Ripping CM" series.] > > How about creating "Commons Geometry"? > > The rationale is comprised of the usual suspects: > * Smaller and more focused component, hence: > - Consistent development and maintenance. > - Consistent release schedule, not encumbered by > changes (and endless discussions) in _totally_ > unrelated code. > - Potential for attracting contributors not > interested in maintaining the (growing) backlog > of CM. > * Self-contained: 96.3% of the "o.a.c.math4.geometry" > package have no dependency except: > - 4 classes now in "Commons Numbers". > - 2 methods and 1 constant in "MathUtils". > - CM exceptions. [Creating alternatives for those > will probably be the most time-consuming part of > the porting work.] > > Moreover, none of the code in the "o.a.c.math4.geometry" > package is used by another package of CM. > > A new component would give the "geometry" codes a much > better chance of being (confidently[1]) released, since > CM is "stuck" for the foreseeable future.[2] > > WDYT? > > Gilles > > [1] There seems to be only one issue reported in JIRA > that pertains to "geometry". > [2] 54 issues yet to be fixed before the 4.0 release; > which, at the current rate, would lead to after 2025 > (a very rough guess, I admit). --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
