On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 23:32:38 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 3/07/2016 à 16:13, Gilles a écrit :
Feel free to fill in any missing names.
People who forgot to vote are welcome to do so. :-)
I voted -0, just like the math functions and the rational numbers I
still think it should remain grouped in the same component.
What are the arguments?
Backed with my arguments, I think the opposite.
I don't dismiss that, in the end, you may be right (the devil being
in the details, it could turn out more complicated than I imagined);
but even in that case, the exercise is a good one, and the resulting
code will be more coherent (free of old cruft) and ready for becoming
its own module in the TLP.
It still seems that the purpose of all this has not been understood;
my plan is provide a little momentum in order that some codes continue
being worked on.
Keeping everything in what was CM is telling me to go away (as in:
"We are fine that nobody wants to join because the code we maintain
is outdated").
While having new components may enhance the visibility of each of
the functionalities.
And, if and when a TLP is eventually created, nothing will prevent
Commons to "donate" that code if, at *that* time, it seems the
most appropriate move.
On the other
hand the RNG stuff is a good fit for an independent component.
I think I already asked: Where is the dividing line between a
fine independent component and something that is not?
Gilles
Emmanuel Bourg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
