On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:18:18 +0100, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:There hasn't been any progress towards a decision. There isn't even a consensus on one of the central tenets of Apache ("Those who do the work..."): how sad/strange (?).Those who do the work are welcome to decide on their own, if they do not involve others.
The conditional is not part of the well-known mantra. The issue here is to answer the question of what to do with a non-trivial code base. My stance is to try and fix the problem(s), a.o. difficult management, by rooting out its main cause: CM has become an aggregate of components with completely different subject matters, scopes, designs, efficiencies, provisions for extension, etc. [An array of issues which "maven" modules will not solve.] We are seemingly faced with a choice between: 1. Maintain CM as the huge library that it is now. 2. Incrementally create maintainable components. A long time has passed since these alternatives were first exposed, only proving that none of the people who informally chose option(1) invested work to make it a reality. Refusing option (2) not only "involves others"; it is harming them (very real people, having done a lot of work here, on that code base).
Establishing a new commons component doesn't qualify, IMO.
True; that's why we are stalled, despite that a majority of the PMC did not explicitly oppose option (2). A handful of PMC people prefer to let the code base become "dormant" rather than give any chance to an alternate view. [If, say, you looked at the "Commons RNG" project, and concluded that, decidedly, this is not how a component should look like, then I could perhaps fathom out where those reservations come from.] Gilles
Jochen
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
