> On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:18:36 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
>>> > On Oct 12, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>> > IIRC, many PMC members did not "like" the idea of having more
>>> > components.
>>> > Even less so if those components are being extracted from Commons
>>> > Math.
>>> > The least "problematic" one, Commons RNG, barely collected the
>>> > number of required votes for a release.
>>> > Has that changed?
>>> > Shall we request git repositories for the candidate components
>>> > which I suggested back in May?
>>> To be clear, Apache Commons currently lists about 40 sub-projects. These
>>> projects are typically small and not closely related with any other
>>> sub-project in any clear way. The objection isn’t to adding more
>>> sub-projects, it is to adding more sub-projects that seem related closely
>>> enough that really belong together. However, I don’t believe anyone
>>> objected to Commons Math being a multi-module project.
>>> I would object to creating new Commons components that are forked off from
>>> Commons Math that have no maintainers.
> It is "Commons Math" that does not have maintainers.
> The new components, would, conspicuously, have maintainers.
> That's one of the main arguments in favour of this option.
>>> If there is code the Commons Math
>>> team doesn’t want then just get rid of it in your new version.
> This option had been rejected in previous discussions, when I
> suggested that I would not release code that I could not
Replace “I” with “we” and we are in agreement. It really isn’t all that
important what one individual can or cannot do.