From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA25495; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:45:20 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA25810 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:45:19 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from apakabar.cc.columbia.edu (apakabar.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.159])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g96KjI526503;
	Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:45:18 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from there (tw304h3.cpmc.columbia.edu [156.111.84.180])
	by apakabar.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA15753;
	Sun, 6 Oct 2002 16:45:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200210062045.QAA15753@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Oleg <oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com>
To: Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr>, caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Threats on future of Camlp4
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 16:45:22 -0400
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2]
References: <20021006205517.B19829@verdot.inria.fr> <200210061929.PAA01123@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <20021006220127.B20005@verdot.inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20021006220127.B20005@verdot.inria.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

On Sunday 06 October 2002 04:01 pm, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 03:29:59PM -0400, Oleg wrote:
> > Could you explain what you mean by "compromising the future of Camlp4"?
> > I thought Camlp4 project was not affiliated with the O'Caml project /
> > team.
>
> It would be good, indeed, that Camlp4 be separated from OCaml, but
> the direction of the OCaml team refuses that energically. However
> it was a good compromise.
>
> He jeopardizes the future of Camlp4 because he gives me two choices:
> either return working on the ocaml/camlp4 version (what I refuse), or
> quit the projet. And if I quit the projet, who is going to improve
> Camlp4?

Daniel, 

I'm still not sure I understand (BTW I did not know Camlp4 was being 
integrated into O'Caml itself) 

You are saying that "[integrating Camlp4 into O'Caml] was a good compromise", 
but you are *also* saying that you are refusing to work on Camlp4 as part of 
O'Caml.  Why?

Pardon my ignorance, but is the offer to work on Camlp4 as part of O'Caml 
some sort of demotion for you at INRIA, or is the whole conflict merely about 
the location of Camlp4 in the CVS tree?

(I'm just curious as to what's going on)

Cheers
Oleg 
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners