[math] TLP

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[math] TLP

Phil Steitz
I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
reasons:

0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
[math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
[math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
has components with subcomponents).

The downsides are
a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
us otherwise
b) Migration / repackaging pain
c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs

Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.

What do others think about this?

Phil


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [math] TLP

James Carman
+1
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:50 PM Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> reasons:
>
> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> has components with subcomponents).
>
> The downsides are
> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> us otherwise
> b) Migration / repackaging pain
> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
>
> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
>
> What do others think about this?
>
> Phil
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [math] TLP

garydgregory
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.

My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
[math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.

Gary

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> reasons:
>
> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> has components with subcomponents).
>
> The downsides are
> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> us otherwise
> b) Migration / repackaging pain
> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
>
> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
>
> What do others think about this?
>
> Phil
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [math] TLP

ole ersoy
I love the idea.  I also think commons will get a lot more eye balls if it gets all the repositories on github and enables the watch button as well as github issues.

Cheers,
Ole

On 01/13/2016 07:24 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:

> I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
> Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.
>
> My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
> [math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
>> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
>> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
>> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
>> reasons:
>>
>> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
>> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
>> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
>> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
>> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
>> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
>> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
>> has components with subcomponents).
>>
>> The downsides are
>> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
>> us otherwise
>> b) Migration / repackaging pain
>> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
>> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
>>
>> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
>> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
>> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
>> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
>> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
>> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
>>
>> What do others think about this?
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [math] TLP

garydgregory
Commons projects that use Git like Math and Lang are already mirrored on
GitHub,

See:

https://github.com/apache/commons-math
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang

Gary

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Ole Ersoy <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I love the idea.  I also think commons will get a lot more eye balls if it
> gets all the repositories on github and enables the watch button as well as
> github issues.
>
> Cheers,
> Ole
>
>
> On 01/13/2016 07:24 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
>> Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.
>>
>> My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
>> [math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
>>> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
>>> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
>>> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
>>> reasons:
>>>
>>> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
>>> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
>>> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
>>> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
>>> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
>>> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
>>> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
>>> has components with subcomponents).
>>>
>>> The downsides are
>>> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
>>> us otherwise
>>> b) Migration / repackaging pain
>>> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
>>> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
>>>
>>> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
>>> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
>>> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
>>> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
>>> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
>>> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
>>>
>>> What do others think about this?
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [math] TLP

ole ersoy
... and it looks like watch notifications for these are now enabled.  Issues are still going through JIRA though.

Cheers,
Ole

On 01/13/2016 08:16 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:

> Commons projects that use Git like Math and Lang are already mirrored on
> GitHub,
>
> See:
>
> https://github.com/apache/commons-math
> https://github.com/apache/commons-lang
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Ole Ersoy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I love the idea.  I also think commons will get a lot more eye balls if it
>> gets all the repositories on github and enables the watch button as well as
>> github issues.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ole
>>
>>
>> On 01/13/2016 07:24 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
>>> Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.
>>>
>>> My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
>>> [math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
>>>> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
>>>> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
>>>> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
>>>> reasons:
>>>>
>>>> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
>>>> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
>>>> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
>>>> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
>>>> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
>>>> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
>>>> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
>>>> has components with subcomponents).
>>>>
>>>> The downsides are
>>>> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
>>>> us otherwise
>>>> b) Migration / repackaging pain
>>>> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
>>>> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
>>>> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
>>>> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
>>>> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
>>>> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
>>>> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
>>>>
>>>> What do others think about this?
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [math] TLP

Luc Maisonobe-2
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
Hi Phil,

Le 14/01/2016 01:50, Phil Steitz a écrit :

> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> reasons:
>
> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> has components with subcomponents).
>
> The downsides are
> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> us otherwise
> b) Migration / repackaging pain
> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
>
> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
>
> What do others think about this?

I also think it is now time for us to grow up and leave parents home.
[math] has become big, really big by now. It looks more like a
standalone autonomous project than a shared component. Since a few
years, it started to becomes a singular component, not really
similar to the others. We almost monopolize the bandwidth on the
mailing list, which can be painful for non-math developers.

I think going TLP could also allow us to do somes things differently,
perhaps experimenting on less stringent constraints about releases,
mainly related to stuff that is not stabilized. We could also accept
some ideas that were rejected up to now as not fitting in commons
scope (higher level stuff like the expression parser that was submitted
twice by different people if I remember well).

So +1 for going TLP.

best regards,
Luc

>
> Phil
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [math] TLP

Siegfried Goeschl-4
Hi folks,

+1 for going TLP (non-binding)

And the luck for Luc :-)

Siegfried Goeschl



----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
Von: "Luc Maisonobe" <[hidden email]>
An: "Commons Developers List" <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2016 11:58:47
Betreff: Re: [math] TLP

Hi Phil,

Le 14/01/2016 01:50, Phil Steitz a écrit :

> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> reasons:
>
> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> has components with subcomponents).
>
> The downsides are
> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> us otherwise
> b) Migration / repackaging pain
> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
>
> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
>
> What do others think about this?

I also think it is now time for us to grow up and leave parents home.
[math] has become big, really big by now. It looks more like a
standalone autonomous project than a shared component. Since a few
years, it started to becomes a singular component, not really
similar to the others. We almost monopolize the bandwidth on the
mailing list, which can be painful for non-math developers.

I think going TLP could also allow us to do somes things differently,
perhaps experimenting on less stringent constraints about releases,
mainly related to stuff that is not stabilized. We could also accept
some ideas that were rejected up to now as not fitting in commons
scope (higher level stuff like the expression parser that was submitted
twice by different people if I remember well).

So +1 for going TLP.

best regards,
Luc

>
> Phil
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [math] TLP

Henri Yandell
+1 (non-binding).

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Siegfried Göschl <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> +1 for going TLP (non-binding)
>
> And the luck for Luc :-)
>
> Siegfried Goeschl
>
>
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Luc Maisonobe" <[hidden email]>
> An: "Commons Developers List" <[hidden email]>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2016 11:58:47
> Betreff: Re: [math] TLP
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> Le 14/01/2016 01:50, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> > I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> > project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> > always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> > convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> > reasons:
> >
> > 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> > [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> > 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> > tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> > 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> > [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> > in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> > has components with subcomponents).
> >
> > The downsides are
> > a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> > us otherwise
> > b) Migration / repackaging pain
> > c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> > d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
> >
> > Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> > point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> > little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> > Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> > to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> > direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
> >
> > What do others think about this?
>
> I also think it is now time for us to grow up and leave parents home.
> [math] has become big, really big by now. It looks more like a
> standalone autonomous project than a shared component. Since a few
> years, it started to becomes a singular component, not really
> similar to the others. We almost monopolize the bandwidth on the
> mailing list, which can be painful for non-math developers.
>
> I think going TLP could also allow us to do somes things differently,
> perhaps experimenting on less stringent constraints about releases,
> mainly related to stuff that is not stabilized. We could also accept
> some ideas that were rejected up to now as not fitting in commons
> scope (higher level stuff like the expression parser that was submitted
> twice by different people if I remember well).
>
> So +1 for going TLP.
>
> best regards,
> Luc
>
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [math] TLP

Thomas Neidhart
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> reasons:
>
> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> has components with subcomponents).
>
> The downsides are
> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> us otherwise
> b) Migration / repackaging pain
> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
>
> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
>
> What do others think about this?
>

I think it would be the right move.

+1

Thomas
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [math] TLP

James Carman
In reply to this post by ole ersoy
So, do we count this as a +1 for Math to go TLP?

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:04 PM Ole Ersoy <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I love the idea.  I also think commons will get a lot more eye balls if it
> gets all the repositories on github and enables the watch button as well as
> github issues.
>
> Cheers,
> Ole
>
> On 01/13/2016 07:24 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
> > Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.
> >
> > My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
> > [math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> >> project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> >> always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> >> convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> >> reasons:
> >>
> >> 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> >> [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> >> 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> >> tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> >> 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> >> [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> >> in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> >> has components with subcomponents).
> >>
> >> The downsides are
> >> a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> >> us otherwise
> >> b) Migration / repackaging pain
> >> c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> >> d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
> >>
> >> Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> >> point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> >> little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> >> Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> >> to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> >> direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
> >>
> >> What do others think about this?
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [math] TLP

James Carman
In reply to this post by garydgregory
You didn't really register a vote here, Gary.  I take it this is a -1
against moving TLP?

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:24 PM Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
> Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.
>
> My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
> [math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> > project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> > always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> > convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> > reasons:
> >
> > 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> > [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> > 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> > tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> > 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> > [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> > in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> > has components with subcomponents).
> >
> > The downsides are
> > a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> > us otherwise
> > b) Migration / repackaging pain
> > c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> > d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
> >
> > Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> > point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> > little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> > Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> > to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> > direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
> >
> > What do others think about this?
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [math] TLP

garydgregory
I did not know this was an official vote thread ;-) in any case, I do not
feel strongly for or against it.

Gary
On Jan 15, 2016 5:21 AM, "James Carman" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You didn't really register a vote here, Gary.  I take it this is a -1
> against moving TLP?
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:24 PM Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects in
> > Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.
> >
> > My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception that
> > [math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> > > project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> > > always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> > > convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> > > reasons:
> > >
> > > 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> > > [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for them
> > > 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> > > tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> > > 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> > > [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> > > in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> > > has components with subcomponents).
> > >
> > > The downsides are
> > > a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> > > us otherwise
> > > b) Migration / repackaging pain
> > > c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> > > d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
> > >
> > > Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> > > point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> > > little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> > > Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> > > to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> > > direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
> > >
> > > What do others think about this?
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [math] TLP

James Carman
Oh, I suppose you're right :)  For some reason, I had it in my mind that he
called a vote and not just a discussion.  My bad.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I did not know this was an official vote thread ;-) in any case, I do not
> feel strongly for or against it.
>
> Gary
> On Jan 15, 2016 5:21 AM, "James Carman" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > You didn't really register a vote here, Gary.  I take it this is a -1
> > against moving TLP?
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:24 PM Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I like having [math] in Commons. There are other multi-module projects
> in
> > > Commons, that's not an issue IMO, just good project design.
> > >
> > > My main worry is more on the overall health of Commons or perception
> that
> > > [math] is "leaving" Commons, the more eyeballs on Commons the better.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would like to propose that we split [math] out into a top level
> > > > project at the ASF.  This has been proposed before, and I have
> > > > always come down on the side of staying in Commons, but I am now
> > > > convinced that it is a good step for us to take for the following
> > > > reasons:
> > > >
> > > > 0) We have several committers who are really only interested in
> > > > [math], so being on the Commons PMC does not really make sense for
> them
> > > > 1) The code base has swollen in size to well beyond the "small sharp
> > > > tools" that make up the bulk of Commons
> > > > 2) We are probably at the point where we should consider splitting
> > > > [math] itself into separately released subcomponents (could be done
> > > > in Commons, but starts smelling a little Jakarta-ish when Commons
> > > > has components with subcomponents).
> > > >
> > > > The downsides are
> > > > a) [newPMC] loses Commons eyeballs / contributors who would not find
> > > > us otherwise
> > > > b) Migration / repackaging pain
> > > > c) Overhead of starting and managing a PMC
> > > > d) Other Commons components lose some eyeballs
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides at this
> > > > point.  New better tools and ASF processes have made b) and c) a
> > > > little less onerous.  I don't think d) is really a big problem for
> > > > Commons, as those of us who work on other stuff here could continue
> > > > to do so.  It is possible that a) actually works in the reverse
> > > > direction - i.e., we are easier to find as a TLP.
> > > >
> > > > What do others think about this?
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> > > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> > > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> > > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> > > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> > >
> >
>