On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:51:05 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:18:36 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ralph Goers
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Gilles
> IIRC, many PMC members did not "like" the idea of having more
> Even less so if those components are being extracted from
> 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.
projects are typically small and not closely related with any
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
enough that really belong together. However, I don’t believe
objected to Commons Math being a multi-module project.
I would object to creating new Commons components that are forked
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.
I don't follow those statements at all.
*I* cannot speak for others; all I can say for sure is that *I*
would not release the whole of CM (be it 3 or 4) knowing full
well that there are whole swaths of code which nobody here can
And it seems that nobody else will do it either.
Hence, what is interesting to know is if you (each PMC member)
trust another PMC member (me) that says that the new components
would be maintained.
I also wrote several times why I think so. [Where the opposite
argument ("CM is maintainable") is still false after 10 months
Quoting Jörg in an earlier post in this thread:
"And most of us will agree that CM4 is dead."
[This is actually the first time it is acknowledged by someone
other than me.]
So the question is quite simple, synthetic and direct: Why
still oppose the creation of new components?
 Because *I* consider it dishonest towards the potential
users. [We had a telling example with a requested
enhancement to the ODE functionality a few months ago.
Even in parts which I thought could still be maintained,
bugs turned out that are not easy to fix.]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org