On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 13:09:21 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
Are you waiting on an answer before reviewing and/or merging his pull
requests?
We are all unlucky that CM developers left. My post with subject
"Commons Math (r)evolution" (referred to below) dates from June 5
(in part inspired by Artem's willingness to contribute), and I'm
still waiting for a "confidence vote" that would reflect what I
did during the previous 6 months (and my presence here for much
longer).
For the record:
* MATH-1372 has code committed in a dedicated branch.
* Artem's other issues are with algorithms on which he knows much
more than I do.
* Since then, other requests are pending (also on code which I did
not write).
* Before then, some seemingly serious issues (see "MullerSolver")
led to a discussion that was left dangling, indefinitely waiting
for an answer (from the people who were busy "privately discussing"
their fork).
Overall, this requires more work than I can reasonably afford.
I was left the dark during months by the forkers, all the while
obliviously (and quite unreasonably) doing development for CM v4.0,
ensuring a presence for CM-related questions and requests on the ML
and providing timely answers on JIRA (and subsequent commits,
whenever possible).
This activity might have led PMC members to believe that it could
go on forever.
But the "takeaway" point I had made on June 5 is that "business as
usual" was not an option (for me). [Hence the alternative proposed
in that same post.]
I hope that is quite clear now.
Gilles
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
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
