Commons projects that use Git like Math and Lang are already mirrored on GitHub,
See: https://github.com/apache/commons-math https://github.com/apache/commons-lang Gary On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Ole Ersoy <ole.er...@gmail.com> wrote: > I love the idea. I also think commons will get a lot more eye balls if it > gets all the repositories on github and enables the watch button as well as > github issues. > > Cheers, > Ole > > > On 01/13/2016 07:24 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in >> Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design. >> >> My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that >> [math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better. >> >> Gary >> >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level >>> project at the ASF. This has been proposed before, and I have >>> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now >>> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following >>> reasons: >>> >>> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in >>> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them >>> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp >>> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons >>> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting >>> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done >>> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons >>> has components with subcomponents). >>> >>> The downsides are >>> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find >>> us otherwise >>> b) Migration / repackaging pain >>> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC >>> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs >>> >>> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this >>> point. New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a >>> little less onerous. I don't think d) is really a big problem for >>> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue >>> to do so. It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse >>> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP. >>> >>> What do others think about this? >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
