Vote thread:
http://markmail.org/message/2a6y7mcwwzkocjny
+1
Gilles Sadowski
Eric Barnhill
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Rob Tompkins
-0
Jochen Wiedmann
Emmanuel Bourg
-1
Benedikt Ritter
Feel free to fill in any missing names.
People who forgot to vote are welcome to do so. :-)
Regards,
Gilles
---
+1 [As contributor, not committer]
> On Jul 1, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Gilles wrote:
>
> Hi Benedikt.
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:43:08 +, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>> Gilles schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016 um
>> 21:32 Uhr:
>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> This is one of several votes for establishing new Comm
Hi Benedikt.
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:43:08 +, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Gilles schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016
um
21:32 Uhr:
Hello.
This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
This vote is dedicated
I’m going to have a go at the implementation here. I figure we can talk more
about it after we have a proposed solution in place.
-Rob
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Gilles wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 07:05:25 -0400, Matt Adereth wrote:
>> Fraction in o.a.c.m. implements the FieldElement in
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 07:05:25 -0400, Matt Adereth wrote:
Fraction in o.a.c.m. implements the FieldElement interface, which I
can't
imagine moving to Lang.
IMO, this adds to having a standalone component that can cater for
simple
and advanced usage. [E.g. casual use would refer to "Fraction"
Fraction in o.a.c.m. implements the FieldElement interface, which I can't
imagine moving to Lang.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:21:40 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Ralph Goers
>> wrote:
>>
>> Your reading and mine are
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:21:40 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
Your reading and mine are a bit different. Stephen Colebourne wanted
Fraction kept in Commons Lang as he felt users would find more value
in it
there because Commons Math is too speci
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Your reading and mine are a bit different. Stephen Colebourne wanted
> Fraction kept in Commons Lang as he felt users would find more value in it
> there because Commons Math is too specialized. I read Gary’s comment as a
> rebuttal to the per
Your reading and mine are a bit different. Stephen Colebourne wanted Fraction
kept in Commons Lang as he felt users would find more value in it there because
Commons Math is too specialized. I read Gary’s comment as a rebuttal to the
person who said Fraction was “foundational” for Commons Math.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:34:47 -0500, Brent Worden wrote:
One previous thread on the subject:
http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku
The final sentence of that thread:
"So I do not see Fraction as the foundation for anything really.
It stands on its own nicely IMO."
What more adequate c
Hi Jochen,
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles
> wrote:
>
>> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
>> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
>> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
>
> *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
At least we can deprecate it
And here is another thread from the [lang] perspective:
http://markmail.org/message/z6tgpsavegsf2rmx
Brent
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Brent Worden
wrote:
> One previous thread on the subject:
> http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku
>
>
> Brent
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:04 PM,
One previous thread on the subject:
http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku
Brent
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Brent Worden
wrote:
> Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around this very
> topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the reasoning for
> keep
Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around this very
topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the reasoning for
keeping both at that time. I will try sifting through the archives to find
the thread if I find time.
Brent
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Ralph Goer
> On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles wrote:
>
>> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
>> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
>> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
>
> *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
Wh
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles wrote:
> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
*Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
Sorry,
Jochen
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
htt
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:09:37 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
+1
I would call it org.apache.commons.fractions (non-mathematicians know
"fractions" more than "rationals", e.g. useful for those dealing with
ancient imperial measurements that occasionally crash Mars probes).
I think this is a cle
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:09:37 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
+1
I would call it org.apache.commons.fractions (non-mathematicians know
"fractions" more than "rationals", e.g. useful for those dealing with
ancient imperial measurements that occasionally crash Mars probes).
I think this is a cle
+1
I would call it org.apache.commons.fractions (non-mathematicians know
"fractions" more than "rationals", e.g. useful for those dealing with
ancient imperial measurements that occasionally crash Mars probes).
I think this is a clean and self-contained component, and also easy to
maintain for an
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:53:22 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 23/06/2016 à 01:36, Gilles a écrit :
the only thing that
was concretely accepted as "fine" is the fork of Commons Math
outside Apache!
I don't remember voting and accepting the fork, do you?
I did not mention "voting".
And "accep
Le 23/06/2016 à 01:36, Gilles a écrit :
> the only thing that
> was concretely accepted as "fine" is the fork of Commons Math
> outside Apache!
I don't remember voting and accepting the fork, do you? The fork was not
a decision from the Commons PMC. We had no other choice than
acknowledging it, b
Gilles doesn’t need anyone’s permission to create a branch. He only has a
problem if someone votes -1. But I can’t imagine why anyone would vote -1 to a
commit on a branch. The only thing he needs permission for is making a release
- in the form of 3 +1 votes and more +1’s than -1’s from PMC m
Is it possible for a committer in Commons to simply declare Lazy Consensus and
checkin code to a new branch?
If so go ahead and see if a community forms. If a substantive conversation
occurs.
If not then propose it and VOTE on giving Giles a branch (olive or fig) and see
what happens?
Regards
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:58:10 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Gilles wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:04:48 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
From the Peanut Gallery,
All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest
to me that the [VOTE]s are premature.
I don't understand the incli
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:14:19 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Gilles
wrote:
But who is "us"?
Right now, I'm proposing to do something together. And if you look
at the commit log, I'm the one doing something alone for the last 6
months. Or CM would have dormant already.
Gilles wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:04:48 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> From the Peanut Gallery,
>>
>> All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest
>> to me that the [VOTE]s are premature.
>>
>> I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are
>>
egory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 08:30
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
[ ... ]
This (and new components VOTE thread) paints a more confusing
picture
than
before to me.
You are proposing to organize code into Co
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Gilles wrote:
>
> But who is "us"?
> Right now, I'm proposing to do something together. And if you look
> at the commit log, I'm the one doing something alone for the last 6
> months. Or CM would have dormant already.
>
> I'm OK setting up the new components, w
Hi Gary
Gary Gregory wrote:
> I wonder if we could reframe the way we are talking here.
>
> I like that we have been fairly civilized.
>
> I like that email let's me read and write at my own time. But we are going
> in circles sometimes. With so many threads, it's hard to track it all.
>
> I a
e attention it evokes.
>
> - Dennis
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 08:30
> > To: Commons Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
gt;> From: Gary Gregory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 08:30
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
>>
> [ ... ]
>>
>> This (and new components VOTE thread) paints a more
parently useless other than for the attention it evokes.
- Dennis
> -Original Message-
> From: Gary Gregory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 08:30
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
>
[ ... ]
>
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:30:08 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Gilles
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:35:43 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
I agree with Benedikt. Plus, I have no idea who in Commons will
maintain this component since the “Math” guys say they con’t want
it
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:35:43 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> I agree with Benedikt. Plus, I have no idea who in Commons will
>> maintain this component since the “Math” guys say they con’t want it.
>>
>
> I gave concrete (positive) arguments for hav
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:35:43 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
I agree with Benedikt. Plus, I have no idea who in Commons will
maintain this component since the “Math” guys say they con’t want it.
I gave concrete (positive) arguments for having the components
submitted
to this vote (see other threads
I agree with Jochen. What to do with the Math stuff should be decided after the
organizational things are done.
Ralph
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:26 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
>
> -0
>
> (I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first, so
> that CM can take such decisions wi
I agree with Benedikt. Plus, I have no idea who in Commons will maintain this
component since the “Math” guys say they con’t want it.
Ralph
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:26 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
>
> -0
>
> (I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first, so
> that CM can
Gilles schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016 um
21:32 Uhr:
> Hello.
>
> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>
> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
>Representation of rational num
Le 21/06/2016 à 21:32, Gilles a écrit :
> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
> Representation of rational numbers
>
> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and packages:
> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
-0, I expect this to remain in the core math
+1 this seems like a useful and self-contained functionality that is not in
the Java API
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
> -0
>
> (I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first, so
> that CM can take such decisions without involving others. OTOH, I
> wo
-0
(I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first, so
that CM can take such decisions without involving others. OTOH, I
won't stop you from doin that.)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Gilles wrote:
> Hello.
>
> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons compon
Hello.
This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
Representation of rational numbers
The concerned code is the contents of the following classes
42 matches
Mail list logo
