From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pB9AcAkL007062
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:38:10 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkAFALfk4U7VuiYS/2dsb2JhbABDDoQoUKJogwKBBYFyAQEFDBdWEAkCGgImAgIsKwYTFId1pRaRMxSBIIkogRYEpmA4
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,325,1320620400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="134698119"
Received: from solaria.dimino.org ([213.186.38.18])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 09 Dec 2011 11:37:56 +0100
Received: from arrakis (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by solaria.dimino.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9489180088;
	Fri,  9 Dec 2011 11:37:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: by arrakis (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 061DD12134E; Fri,  9 Dec 2011 11:37:55 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <1323427075.32238.91.camel@arrakis>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=E9mie?= Dimino <jeremie@dimino.org>
To: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
Cc: Benedikt Meurer <benedikt.meurer@googlemail.com>,
        caml users
	 <caml-list@inria.fr>,
        Caml-devel developers <caml@inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 11:37:55 +0100
In-Reply-To: <F1C3BA1F-BA82-4F09-AD81-FD3264C0C224@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
References: <55531934-37A5-4CC5-AB67-20CE4CCE8269@googlemail.com>
	 <F1C3BA1F-BA82-4F09-AD81-FD3264C0C224@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3-3 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id pB9AcAkL007062
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml maintenance status / community fork (again)

Le vendredi 09 décembre 2011 à 11:11 +0900, Jacques Garrigue a écrit :
> I do agree that the problem with ARM reflect some problem in the current development
> organization, but I don't think that you need to fork to solve it.
> *(And note by the way that a real fork could be in contradiction with the QPL.)*

I thought OCaml was a free software...

Seriously, i don't understand why a fork would be a bad thing. There are
lots of parts for which one don't need to be superman to contribute. And
right now there are lots of trivial patches on the tracker that remain
without response after several years, so there is clearly a need for
improvement.

Also the development of OCaml seems a bit opaque, we don't know where
the discutions of the core team happen. Maybe it is on caml@inria.fr but
it is not public. I think people are interested (i am) about technical
discutions on the compiler.

Cheers,

-- 
Jérémie