> On Aug 21, 2017, at 4:39 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:31:55 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote: >>> Am 20.08.2017 um 23:11 schrieb Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>: >>> >>> I have to agree with Jochen and am -1 to this proposal. I have stated >>> before that I don’t want to see Commons become the placeholder for all the >>> Math related components. If Math has stuff that can’t be maintained then >>> create a MathLegacy project in the sandbox and move the stuff there. >> >> I’ve also already argued in that direction. > > I gave technical arguments in favour of the proposal (cf. first > post in this thread). > > People opposing it give none. > A sudden "allergy" of some PMC members to "math"-related code > does not warrant rejecting non-obsolete code.[1] > > A good start would be to answer this question: Why is it bad (or > worse than the current situation) to have this "new" component?
Technical arguments are not required since this is basically a housekeeping issue. I’m not sure why I would answer your last question since you are clearly going to have a different opinion. But many of us believe that Math is a great name for a project that contains math subcomponents, rather than wading through a bunch of different Commons projects. Eventually you are going to want Commons Statistics, Commons Transforms, Commons Primes, etc. or things that are even more specific. All of these should be modules under Math. To be honest, I’m really not clear why Commons Numbers was approved as I’ve never heard anyone talk about complex numbers or fractions in anything but a mathematical concept. I get that what you are really trying to do is kill Commons Math off piece by piece. I just don’t agree with doing that. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
