Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Frankly, as an observer, this issue seems to be handled pretty poorly. Commons-Math is currently dead. There are people willing to put in effort to work on parts of it, but they are blocked at every turn. Various options are put forward, but nothing ever happens. In technical terms, if

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Hi Ralph. On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 22:38:06 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote: I don’t know Then please _read_ the ML archive. why you are ignoring I do not (willingly) "ignore" any proposal. [Gentle reminders are welcome if/when I lost track of a pending issue that is waiting for my input.] It's

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

I don’t know why you are ignoring option 3, which is what many have suggested many times. 3) Modify CM to be a multi-module project that contains only the modules you want to support. Ralph > On Dec 3, 2017, at 4:51 AM, Gilles wrote: > > On Sun, 3 Dec 2017

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Can this project be forked to a new domain over on GitHub (under the existing Apache license), split up and then continued in that case? Cheers, Martijn On 3 December 2017 at 11:51, Gilles wrote: > On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:18:18 +0100, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > >> On

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:18:18 +0100, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Gilles wrote: There hasn't been any progress towards a decision. There isn't even a consensus on one of the central tenets of Apache ("Those who do the work..."): how

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Gilles wrote: > There hasn't been any progress towards a decision. > There isn't even a consensus on one of the central tenets of > Apache ("Those who do the work..."): how sad/strange (?). Those who do the work are welcome to decide

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Hi. On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:40:38 +, Martijn Verburg wrote: Has the PMC and the active developers met over a video call to try and hash this out? The ML archive is replete with discussions. A few PMC members voiced their agreement with the Apache mantra. A few oppose trying an approach

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Has the PMC and the active developers met over a video call to try and hash this out? It would be a shame to see this library fall into disuse. I'd also argue with Jigsaw being the heart of Java 9+ that more modular libs now make sense. Cheers, Martijn On 1 December 2017 at 14:56, Gilles

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 19:23:57 +0530, Amey Jadiye wrote: On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Gilles wrote: Hello Amey. Hi Gilles, On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:45:45 +0530, Amey Jadiye wrote: Pardon me for pulling this thread up again, I havent read anything about

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Amey Jadiye wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Gilles > wrote: > >> Hello Amey. > > > Hi Gilles, > >> >> >> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:45:45 +0530, Amey Jadiye wrote: >> >>> Pardon me for pulling this

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Gilles wrote: > Hello Amey. Hi Gilles, > > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:45:45 +0530, Amey Jadiye wrote: > >> Pardon me for pulling this thread up again, I havent read anything about >> "Commons Geometry" since long >> > > Thanks for

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Hello Amey. On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:45:45 +0530, Amey Jadiye wrote: Pardon me for pulling this thread up again, I havent read anything about "Commons Geometry" since long Thanks for your renewed interest. (or may be I missed any other disscussion? ). Probably not. is someone working on

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Pardon me for pulling this thread up again, I havent read anything about "Commons Geometry" since long (or may be I missed any other disscussion? ). is someone working on this ? what is the final decision ? I'm having good amount of time to spend on this now, appreciate If someone direct me to

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 13:07:24 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Gilles wrote: Because of "Commons" rules, it is not "equivalent": There was a long thread concluding that all modules must be released _together_, and with the same

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Hi Jochen, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Gilles > wrote: > >> Because of "Commons" rules, it is not "equivalent": There was >> a long thread concluding that all modules must be released >> _together_, and with the same top-level package

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Gilles wrote: > Because of "Commons" rules, it is not "equivalent": There was > a long thread concluding that all modules must be released > _together_, and with the same top-level package name and version > number. > It is very

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Gilles wrote: > On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:35:17 -0400, Raymond DeCampo wrote: > >> I know I haven't been around lately, but I this exchange caught my eye. >> >> I was trying to figure out a way to balance the issues, first, that there

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:35:17 -0400, Raymond DeCampo wrote: I know I haven't been around lately, but I this exchange caught my eye. I was trying to figure out a way to balance the issues, first, that there is resistance to creating a large number of projects spun out from CM Depending on

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:33:55 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 4/09/2017 à 15:30, Gilles a écrit : I see it as a fundamental one: Why should codes unrelated by scope be artificially tied together by management rules (such as design, supported language version, release schedule, etc.)?[1]

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

I'm another Commons developer who: * Hasn't been "present" lately * Has no special mathematical background * Desires consensus * Repeatedly reads these exchanges in a state of vacillation between sympathy for Gilles's situation and suspicion that his communication style is too abrasive.

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

I know I haven't been around lately, but I this exchange caught my eye. I was trying to figure out a way to balance the issues, first, that there is resistance to creating a large number of projects spun out from CM and second, that there is a practical limit to how large a project can be

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Le 4/09/2017 à 15:30, Gilles a écrit : > I see it as a fundamental one: Why should codes unrelated > by scope be artificially tied together by management rules > (such as design, supported language version, release schedule, > etc.)?[1] Because they share the same general scope of being math

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Hi. On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 11:41:55 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 2/09/2017 à 00:50, Gilles a écrit : Because of "Commons" rules, it is not "equivalent": There was a long thread concluding that all modules must be released _together_, and with the same top-level package name and version number.

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Le 2/09/2017 à 00:50, Gilles a écrit : > Because of "Commons" rules, it is not "equivalent": There was > a long thread concluding that all modules must be released > _together_, and with the same top-level package name and version > number. True, but I don't see this as an issue. > I think

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

> On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Bill Igoe wrote: > > Hi Gang, > > I am new to this apache group. My two cents here for a first post. Finally > jumping after reading the threads and sensing the frustration. . I have > pretty good success in using Math commons 3.6 for

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Hi Gang, I am new to this apache group. My two cents here for a first post. Finally jumping after reading the threads and sensing the frustration. . I have pretty good success in using Math commons 3.6 for financial derivatives, financial and economics analysis and etc. Using the 3.6 as my a

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 09:44:36 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 1/09/2017 à 04:54, Dave Brosius a écrit : So volunteers? Gary, Emmanuel, others?? are you up to doing this? I can setup the initial branch, but I need at least Gilles' consent and an indication about the first modules he'd like to

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 00:28:19 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 31/08/2017 à 23:33, Gilles a écrit : it's a pity we cannot meet in person to sort all those issues Hum, maybe with a few beers you'll be easier to convince ;) It would quite probably require a stronger beverage. I'm not against

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Le 1/09/2017 à 04:54, Dave Brosius a écrit : > So volunteers? Gary, Emmanuel, others?? are you up to doing this? I can setup the initial branch, but I need at least Gilles' consent and an indication about the first modules he'd like to integrate. Emmanuel Bourg

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Dave Brosius wrote: > So volunteers? Gary, Emmanuel, others?? are you up to doing this? > Not for a while for me. Working and moving. Gary > > > On 08/31/2017 06:29 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Emmanuel

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

So volunteers? Gary, Emmanuel, others?? are you up to doing this? On 08/31/2017 06:29 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 31/08/2017 à 23:33, Gilles a écrit : it's a pity we cannot meet in person to sort all those issues

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 31/08/2017 à 23:33, Gilles a écrit : > > > it's a pity we cannot meet in person to sort all those issues > > Hum, maybe with a few beers you'll be easier to convince ;) > > > > I'm not against you modularizing CM, I'm

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Le 31/08/2017 à 23:33, Gilles a écrit : > it's a pity we cannot meet in person to sort all those issues Hum, maybe with a few beers you'll be easier to convince ;) > I'm not against you modularizing CM, I'm against me doing it > just because you "think" it's a better approach to the >

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:53:56 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 30/08/2017 à 22:14, Gilles a écrit : -1 to asking others to do one's work.[1] So whatever the others think you don't care? If the quantity of work is important to you then you should be happy with a multi-module project since it

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Le 30/08/2017 à 22:14, Gilles a écrit : > -1 to asking others to do one's work.[1] So whatever the others think you don't care? If the quantity of work is important to you then you should be happy with a multi-module project since it induces significantly less work than multiple components: -

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:28:49 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 21/08/2017 à 21:41, Gary Gregory a écrit : What about this for a compromise: create Commons Math 5 as a multi-module project and bring in as submodules only the newly minted components and whatever gets spun out of Math 3/4. +1

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Le 21/08/2017 à 21:41, Gary Gregory a écrit : > What about this for a compromise: create Commons Math 5 as a multi-module > project and bring in as submodules only the newly minted components and > whatever gets spun out of Math 3/4. +1 for multiple modules instead of multiple components.

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:35:22 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Gilles wrote: Other programming languages eco-systems successfully follow an approach based on (really) small components; why would you want "Commons Math" to remain this

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Gilles wrote: > Other programming languages eco-systems successfully follow > an approach based on (really) small components; why would you > want "Commons Math" to remain this monolithic beast? No one is arguing for monolithic. We

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:43:30 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote: On Aug 21, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: What about this for a compromise: create Commons Math 5 as a multi-module project and bring in as submodules only the newly minted components and whatever gets

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

That is what I would like to see. Ralph > On Aug 21, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > What about this for a compromise: create Commons Math 5 as a multi-module > project and bring in as submodules only the newly minted components and > whatever gets spun out

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 10:52:28 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote: On Aug 21, 2017, at 4:39 AM, Gilles wrote: On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:31:55 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote: Am 20.08.2017 um 23:11 schrieb Ralph Goers : I have to agree with Jochen

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

> On Aug 21, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > What about this for a compromise: create Commons Math 5 as a multi-module > project and bring in as submodules only the newly minted components and > whatever gets spun out of Math 3/4. This feels like a good

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

What about this for a compromise: create Commons Math 5 as a multi-module project and bring in as submodules only the newly minted components and whatever gets spun out of Math 3/4. Gary On Aug 21, 2017 13:26, "Dave Brosius" wrote: > >> I get that what you are really

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

>> I get that what you are really trying to do is kill Commons Math off piece by piece. I just don’t agree with doing that. This is ridiculous. Giles is the primary person trying to keep some semblance of commons-math-like-stuff alive. He has asserted that there is no way he can maintain all

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

> On Aug 21, 2017, at 4:39 AM, Gilles wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:31:55 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote: >>> Am 20.08.2017 um 23:11 schrieb Ralph Goers : >>> >>> I have to agree with Jochen and am -1 to this proposal. I have stated

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

oops. My bad. I just noticed this is NOT a vote there. I just saw what looked like votes. Ralph > On Aug 20, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > > This is a vote thread - not a discussion thread. If you want to discuss > people’s votes please move it to another

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:31:55 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote: Am 20.08.2017 um 23:11 schrieb Ralph Goers : I have to agree with Jochen and am -1 to this proposal. I have stated before that I don’t want to see Commons become the placeholder for all the Math related

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

> Am 20.08.2017 um 23:11 schrieb Ralph Goers : > > I have to agree with Jochen and am -1 to this proposal. I have stated before > that I don’t want to see Commons become the placeholder for all the Math > related components. If Math has stuff that can’t be

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

This is a vote thread - not a discussion thread. If you want to discuss people’s votes please move it to another thread. Ralph > On Aug 20, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Gilles wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 23:16:17 +0530, Amey Jadiye wrote: >> I'm +1 to this change, I

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

I have to agree with Jochen and am -1 to this proposal. I have stated before that I don’t want to see Commons become the placeholder for all the Math related components. If Math has stuff that can’t be maintained then create a MathLegacy project in the sandbox and move the stuff there. Ralph

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 23:16:17 +0530, Amey Jadiye wrote: I'm +1 to this change, I would be more than happy to lend my hands to help on this front. pardon me for being quite because some heavy work on my day job. I don't want to fork this thread to different discussion but I have one simple

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

I'm +1 to this change, I would be more than happy to lend my hands to help on this front. pardon me for being quite because some heavy work on my day job. I don't want to fork this thread to different discussion but I have one simple doubt that rather creating whole new component why don't we

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

+1 On 08/17/2017 11:15 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: +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: -

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 14:44:09 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Gilles wrote: How about creating "Commons Geometry"? Honestly: There are other subprojects (Vfs comes to mind), which are perfectly able to produce a set of jar file

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Gilles wrote: > How about creating "Commons Geometry"? Honestly: There are other subprojects (Vfs comes to mind), which are perfectly able to produce a set of jar file without adding to the list of jar files for every one. Why do

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

+1 with the thought of Benedikt's point about trying to lift one project at a time. > On Aug 17, 2017, at 11:15 AM, Jörg Schaible > wrote: > > +1 > > Looks good to me. > > Gilles wrote: > >> Hello. >> >> [Time for a new episode in our "Ripping CM" series.]

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

+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

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Hi Benedikt. On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:48:45 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote: Hello Gilles, Am 15.08.2017 um 16:26 schrieb Gilles : Hello. [Time for a new episode in our "Ripping CM" series.] How about creating "Commons Geometry"? The rationale is comprised of the

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > Hello Gilles, > > > Am 15.08.2017 um 16:26 schrieb Gilles : > > > > Hello. > > > > [Time for a new episode in our "Ripping CM" series.] > > > > How about creating "Commons Geometry"? > > >

Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

Hello Gilles, > Am 15.08.2017 um 16:26 schrieb Gilles : > > 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,

[All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?

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