On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 20:24:06 -0500, Mark Diggory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Even if we have to go through the incubator, I'm convinced that adding the JAMA codebase into the math library is the best option. IMHO, I'm
Can't see why the Incubator would be needed if the aim was to go from Apache/Jakarta/Commons/Math to Apache/Jakarta/Math.
If it was to goto Apache/Math, might be a it more needed in terms of community discussion etc.
There are two things going on here. One is is deciding where [math] is going. Agreed that just moving to Jakarta/Math or even Apache/Math really has nothing to do with the incubator. We should probably discuss this on a different thread.
What *does* potentially have to do with the incubator is bringing in a substantial code base and hopefully (IMHO) some new contributors. This would be analogous to DB/Axiom and other cases where contributed code bases were incubated for eventual inclusion in existing projects.
If we bring in the entire JAMA code base, seems to me we would have to bring it through the incubator. Correct me if I am wrong.
convinced that while the JAMA folks were very generous and open to
providing the codebase to the public domain, that further enhancing its
capabilities and providing any user support is not really in their
interest. It would be far more in our interest if we forked the codebase
and supported it.
+1 assuming they're not actively supporting theirs anymore.
But they *are* supporting the code. They are about to release a maintenance release with some bug fixes.
Any suggestion that the "JAMA folks" would have to "agree" to this is not the nature of public domain, IMO reuse of public domain doesn't require any such acknowledgment, though we should liberally acknowledge their contribution wherever possible.
Or in the nature of the Apache licence. Still, it's polite to do so. Having their blessing is good from a PR point of view of a fork, it makes us the good natured folk who are supporting the tool, and not the evil baddies who are unwilling to work with the original.
I assume that we'd still treat JAMA/RngPack as trademarks/names owned by others.
<snip/>
Note, JAMA is not a large codebase, and is in the public domain. As such, does this really require the need for an "Incubator project"?
Creation of math.apache.org might.
Lets not mix the discussion of these two. For now, let's just assume we are bringing the code into commons-math.
If the JAMA/NIST community were moving their code over to apache.org, then it definitely would. As it is it sounds like we're just talking about an existing part of the Apache community forking a piece of code to use within their exisitng community.
Incubation is really about communities and not code, so if the community is already incubated, I don't see why the code would have to be.
Would you be looking to pull in the whole thing, or just using the JAMA/NIST code as a place to aquire some snippets/classes? I assume there's a fair amount of duplication already?
Not that much duplication exists. What we are *deciding* now is how much and how to pull it in. The options are as I described earlier in the thread:
0) snippets / classes as needed 1) jar dependency 2) full merge
I am -0 on 2) without support from the JAMA developers or other volunteers. The code base is not huge but some of the algorithms are nontrivial.
While it's public domain, would we still treat it as a contribution (albeit one we pull rather than a contributor push) and maintain a note of contribution in the source or NOTICE?
Yes, if we do 0), we would add attribution in NOTICE and class headers for classes including JAMA code. JAMA folks would be fine with that.
Phil
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
