Are you waiting on an answer before reviewing and/or merging his pull requests?
Ralph > On Aug 4, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:13:26 -0400, Artem Barger wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> >>> > All I'm saying this is one of the problems within CM, which IMO only a >>> > symptom for more acute problem of missing community. Also as you can see >>> in >>> > ML archive I've tried several times to rise discussion around work I'm >>> > doing and also asked for PR review. >>> > And to be precise, right now the someone to apply is Gilles only, as far >>> as >>> > I'm getting situation correctly. >>> >>> Any Commons committer can apply the patch. But to be honest, unless the >>> patch is somewhat obvious or is in a part of the code Gilles isn’t familiar >>> with, I would expect most everyone would wait for Gilles blessing. >> >> >> So if almost everyone supposed to wait until Gilles will accept it, why >> Gilles initiatives of how project should be divided into separate >> independent modules could not be accepted? I mean what should happen >> effectively, to move things forward? I was using CM for implementation of >> different parts of my thesis work and I couldn't imagine to myself that >> proposing improvements or new things related to CM base code will be so >> hard. > > From reading this thread, it seems that people forgot (or did not > read the whole story from when were informed of the fork) that the > Commons Math team was reduced by more than 85% in a very short time > span. [Without any prior warning or attempt to resolve conflicts > (archives are proofs of that).] > > I had made a summary of the situation: > http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp > <http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp> > > After all the discussions, we eventually are back at square one: What > could be done previously with 5 or 6 long-time maintainers (and code > creators), all PMC members, and 2 or 3 additional team members, cannot > be done by me alone. But PMC people continue to state that I am the > one to do the work (review contributions, "bless" them; from there, > nominate people, "grow a community", and in the mean time, apply all > the patches). > > If this is indeed the case, then as Artem states pointedly, why can't > I *also* decide what is best for this embryo of a new community of > contributors? > > Again, nobody answered a simple question: Why not create as many > components as any PMC member would fancy, and see how they fare in > the world of modules at large, rather than have non-contributors guess > at, or "feel", what is a good component? > > As I stated many times, this IMO seems a contradiction with the "those > who do the work get to decide" purported Apache/Commons policy... > > I'm willing to try avoiding what I deems where CM management mistakes. > I refuse to work under the old model. > > If this PMC refuses to consider the experiment, it should be suggesting > alternatives (e.g. someone else willing to step forward and work under > the old model) or acknowledge that *it* (and not me) prefers to see the > CM code rot. > > > Regards, > Gilles > >> Best regards, >> Artem Barger. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > <mailto:dev-h...@commons.apache.org>
