Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-11-18 Thread Gilles
Hi Bernd. On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 11:44:05 +, Bernd Porr wrote: Hi Eric, how do we move this forward? I cannot commit to the CVS so shall I send you patches and you work them in or what is the workflow? For non-committer contributions, my preference is to have files/patches attached to a

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-11-18 Thread Bernd Porr
Hi Eric, how do we move this forward? I cannot commit to the CVS so shall I send you patches and you work them in or what is the workflow? Best /Bernd On 26/10/16 13:48, Eric Barnhill wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Gilles wrote: It sounds like you

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-28 Thread Rob Tompkins
> On Oct 25, 2016, at 5:59 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > I am against spinning out org.apache.commons.math4.complex out into yet > another component. The argument that Gilles refuses to > support org.apache.commons.math4.complex because he does not want to > support all of

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-26 Thread Benedikt Ritter
e: 10/25/16 11:51 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [complex] commons-complex module > > Le 25/10/2016 à 17:46, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit : > > Honestly, I really wonder why all this stuff has to fork yet another >

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-26 Thread Gilles
Hi Eric. On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:48:17 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Gilles wrote: It sounds like you can create your new component on top of math4, correct? Would you rather reply to the technical arguments put forward in

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-26 Thread Eric Barnhill
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Gilles wrote: > >> It sounds like you can create your new component on top of math4, correct? >> > > Would you rather reply to the technical arguments put forward in the > preceding paragraph? > > I've already answered your question

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-26 Thread Gilles
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:00:55 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Eric Barnhill wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > I am against this constant spinning out. > > Gary > > The proposed

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-26 Thread Gilles
Hi Gary. On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:59:27 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: I am against spinning out org.apache.commons.math4.complex out into yet another component. The argument that Gilles refuses to support org.apache.commons.math4.complex because he does not want to support all of

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-25 Thread Bernd Porr
Hi all, I agree that 'filter' is slightly problematic but I'd say because it's been used in different contexts and often misleading. However, I cannot think of a better word. That also depends where we place 2D image processing. They are also called filters. For IIR , Kalman(and possibly

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-25 Thread Gary Gregory
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Eric Barnhill wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Gary Gregory > wrote: > > > > > I am against this constant spinning out. > > > > Gary > > > > > The proposed commons-filter is not a spin out. There was one

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-25 Thread Gary Gregory
I am against spinning out org.apache.commons.math4.complex out into yet another component. The argument that Gilles refuses to support org.apache.commons.math4.complex because he does not want to support all of org.apache.commons.math4 in favor of supporting a COPY of

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-25 Thread Eric Barnhill
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > I am against this constant spinning out. > > Gary > > The proposed commons-filter is not a spin out. There was one filter in math and it didn't belong there. Now we have at least couple of people around who know

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-25 Thread Gilles
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:32:20 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: Honestly, I really wonder why all this stuff has to fork yet another commons component. IMO, CM could just have been changed to emit multiple jar files

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-25 Thread Gilles
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:51:00 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 25/10/2016 à 17:46, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit : Honestly, I really wonder why all this stuff has to fork yet another commons component. IMO, CM could just have been changed to emit multiple jar files with no need for other components.

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-25 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Le 25/10/2016 à 18:20, dbrosIus a écrit : > I think we should let the people doing the work, decide. In general I agree with that, but there is a minimum level of formalism to follow for creating new components. Otherwise Commons will just turn into a GitHub/SourceForge clone inside Apache.

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-25 Thread Gary Gregory
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > Honestly, I really wonder why all this stuff has to fork yet another > commons component. IMO, CM could just have been changed to emit > multiple jar files with no need for other components. No need for >

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-25 Thread dbrosIus
I think we should let the people doing the work,  decide.  Original message From: Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> Date: 10/25/16 11:51 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> Subject: Re: [complex] commons-complex module Le 25/

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-25 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Le 25/10/2016 à 17:46, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit : > Honestly, I really wonder why all this stuff has to fork yet another > commons component. IMO, CM could just have been changed to emit > multiple jar files with no need for other components. No need for > discussions, no need for new repositories

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-25 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
Honestly, I really wonder why all this stuff has to fork yet another commons component. IMO, CM could just have been changed to emit multiple jar files with no need for other components. No need for discussions, no need for new repositories in Git, no need for new stuff in Jira. Or, to put it

Re: [complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-25 Thread Gilles
Hi. On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 13:42:56 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote: As the recent contribution shows the commons-math complex library remains quite useful to many applications. Following in the footsteps of commons-rng, commons-complex seems like a good next component of math to spin out and

[complex] commons-complex module

2016-10-22 Thread Eric Barnhill
As the recent contribution shows the commons-math complex library remains quite useful to many applications. Following in the footsteps of commons-rng, commons-complex seems like a good next component of math to spin out and actively maintain. I am willing to oversee and maintain the project. It