On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:57:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 12/10/2016 à 16:15, Gilles a écrit :

The 3.x line is obsolete.
No new feature or bug-fix should be introduced there.

Hi Gilles,

I understand you don't want to invest time in maintaining the 3.x line
and I respect that, but others might be interested. I don't think
pushing minor bug fixes to CM 3 will undermine CM 4.

Work on 3.X did undermine CM4.

[The problem here is that you want me to be synthetic, but you
seem to have no clue about the history, thereby forcing me to
recollect facts from the past, because you don't believe my
synthetic statement above.]

So, what you say in substance is that you'd rather _wait_ for
someone to come by who will want to work with you on 3.x, rather
than continue with people, here and now, a work (CM4) that
started more than 3 years ago.

There is no sufficient manpower to work on both (cf. the backlog
of issues). [There wasn't before, and the situation did not
improve after the fork.]

It will be a waste for everyone if we split the already scarce
resources to work on the two lines, of which the 3.x line will
always be a "sub-Hipparchus".

In some areas/packages, code in the CM4 is still the same as
in 3.x.  And there is no one left in Commons that would want
to significantly modify those areas, for which I have no qualms
if you maintain them in 3.x.

In areas where major changes were introduced in the development
branch, my proposal is still that we try to split them off CM
(see rationale in my posts sent in May).

Commits should be done either in the 3.x line or in master, but
not both.

Can we agree on a list of legacy packages (maintained in 3.x),
and a list of actively modified ones (worked on in master, in
view of releasing them as independent tools)?


Emmanuel Bourg

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Reply via email to