Pardon me for pulling this thread up again, I havent read anything about "Commons Geometry" since long (or may be I missed any other disscussion? ). is someone working on this ? what is the final decision ? I'm having good amount of time to spend on this now, appreciate If someone direct me to correct disscussion thread I think I can help here. It took me half hour to read all old mails but dont see final verdict, though I was in favour with Maven modules but after reading all again I think Gilles approch is more practicle here and If no one is working I can submit something to review.
Regards, Amey On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 13:07:24 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> >> wrote: >> >> Because of "Commons" rules, it is not "equivalent": There was >>> a long thread concluding that all modules must be released >>> _together_, and with the same top-level package name and version >>> number. >>> It is very "maintainer(s)-unfriendly" because of the quite >>> different subject matters that coexist in CM. >>> >> >> I wouldn't count that rule "*all* modules must be released" as a mantra: >> > > I found the idea attractive, but Stian (link to older discussion > in a previous post) advised that maven would not easily "support" > it. > > Has that changed since the discussion took place (10 months ago)? > > a) In case of an emergency release (fixing a CVE, for example), I'd >> clearly consider pushing out the module as more important than waiting >> for a full release. (Of course, one must be careful to maintain >> compatibility when pushing out just a module, but that goes without >> saying.) >> b) I'd like to hear others experiences on that topic (maybe VFS). >> Anyways, my personal experiences with Rat are clear: Releasing *all* >> together is causing nothing but pain, and tends to defer releases >> indefinitely. OTOH, releasing a submodule can be done at all times, >> and without overly much preparation. >> >> In conclusion, I'd definitely support the release of a single >> submodule, if the need would arise. >> > > How can one reconcile what you say here with what was said in > that old thread? > > Would the PMC accept that a component contains independent modules > (where "independent" means that each module can have its own version > number, irrespective of the component's version)? > > Arguably (cf. thread referred to above), a "Commons" component > should be simple enough that multiple versions are not necessary. > [Chorus:] This is not the case with "Commons Math", hence separate > components for independent contents (such as "Geometry", "RNG", > "Numbers" and "SigProc") is the simplest solution. > > Gilles > > Jochen >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
