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 JAA09790; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:56:39 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA10102 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:56:38 +0100 (MET) Received: from mz1.forethought.net (mzpi3.forethought.net [216.241.36.12]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2I8v5KW029282 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:57:06 +0100 Received: from [216.241.35.41] (helo=swordfish) by mz1.forethought.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B3tKN-0000Ka-TW for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:56:36 -0700 Received: from matt by swordfish with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B3tKQ-0003Px-00 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:56:38 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:56:38 -0700 From: Matt Gushee To: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Subject: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library) Message-ID: <20040318085638.GA11753@swordfish> Reply-To: Matt Gushee Mail-Followup-To: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr References: <07FEC955-782B-11D8-850C-000A957FFA4A@csun.edu> <20040318001905.36025.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040318001905.36025.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i X-Miltered: at nez-perce by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; gushee:01 mgushee:01 havenrock:01 ocaml's:01 caml-list:01 run-time:01 2004:99 posix:01 tad:99 suitably:01 pressures:99 vaguely:01 fragile:01 camlp:01 --a:99 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 163 On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 04:19:05PM -0800, Vasili Galchin wrote: > > and so, those of us who have created bindings for > > other Posix functions > > should > > try to work with them to get our code merged. This > Eric, it sounds to me that you and I are on the > same page, i.e. in total agreement. What prompted my > posting is that I feel a tad frustrated when I read > code that I believe is very good (e.g. Georgi's ipv6 > socket code where he split socket stuff out from > unix.ml by itself making readibility much better and > esaier multiple people to work and not having big > merge problems) and I hear about other code. In both > cases, these new code seems to have been sitting > around and not code reviewed and put into CVS, where > it should be. Also there is a danger of some > divergence because someone will use some of this > non-checked in code and it becomes defacto standard. > So, OCaml community, how do we move forward to get > this new processed and potentially merged into the > mainline. (Sorry about the grandiose title. I have nothing suitably profound to say ... just couldn't think of a better way to express the subject.) I wonder if it is possible to persuade INRIA to do anything. I have no inside information on the process at INRIA, but my impression from reading this list over the past year or so is: 1) The OCaml team at INRIA care about the community, but there are too few of them to meet all our needs, and I suppose their work is also subject to institutional pressures that we are only vaguely aware of. Maybe they are struggling to keep enough resources for OCaml work. 2) INRIA as an institution finds it convenient to release OCaml as open source, but doesn't really care about the community. They benignly neglect everything that doesn't relate to their research goals. 3) OCaml-as-project (i.e. I'm talking about how OCaml is developed, not what it is) is a fragile enterprise. E.g., one developer leaves, and the future of Camlp4 becomes uncertain. Not good. I'm not saying you should give up hope just yet, but maybe it's time to consider alternatives. What if there were an "OCaml Community Library Project"--a group outside INRIA that would take responsibility for extending and perhaps partially replacing the standard library--maybe a bit like the current ExtLib project, only more extensive (BTW, why are there two ExtLibs?? One of you change the name, please! Thank you.). Maybe if that project showed itself to be responsible, credible, reliable, etc. etc., after a while it could become the de facto standard library. The idealistic scenario is a division of labor wherein INRIA continues to develop the parts of OCaml that are interesting to them, while other parts (of more interest to those of us working to create practical and/or commercial software) would be taken over by the community. I can't say whether this idea is feasible, or whether INRIA would be willing to go along with it, but maybe it's something to consider. -- Matt Gushee When a nation follows the Way, Englewood, Colorado, USA Horses bear manure through mgushee@havenrock.com its fields; http://www.havenrock.com/ When a nation ignores the Way, Horses bear soldiers through its streets. --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.) ------------------- 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