From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EC2BC69 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 15:22:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from furbychan.cocan.org (furbychan.cocan.org [80.68.91.176]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l75DMkp9014175 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 15:22:47 +0200 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1IHg4C-0002lH-00; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 14:22:44 +0100 Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 14:22:44 +0100 To: Erik de Castro Lopo Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Sorted list Message-ID: <20070805132244.GB8212@furbychan.cocan.org> References: <20070804173517.GA24131@jiyu.gnu> <200708050247.34512.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20070805214459.c676d93a.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> <20070805.210349.2004151930.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <20070805223148.44eef102.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070805223148.44eef102.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Richard Jones X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46B5CF27.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 git:98 git:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 suggesting:02 essentially:02 patches:03 patches:03 erik:04 depends:04 size:95 problem:05 problem:05 fork:05 On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 10:31:48PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > The main problem is that it requires that the first step of the build > process for the modified source code to be the application of a patch. > For more extensive modifications the patch can easily grow to an > unweildy size. rpmbuild -bp ... > There is also the problem of supplying revision control access to the > modified source code. Providing public revsion control would, I think, > be considered distribution, but meeting the patches requirement for > code in RC would be a PITA. It depends what would be considered as distribution, but revision control systems like git essentially operate on pristine sources + patches, and you could easily set it up so that one branch was the pristine source and another branch contained your changesets (branches are virtually free in git). Again, I'm not suggesting that we fork OCaml. Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat