From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB5FBBAF for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:42:01 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AocDAGc3VUtDz4HegWdsb2JhbACbfQEBFiS6I4QzBA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,303,1262559600"; d="scan'208";a="45190242" Received: from fettunta.fettunta.org ([67.207.129.222]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2010 13:42:00 +0100 Received: from usha.takhisis.invalid (unknown [10.17.0.10]) by fettunta.fettunta.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0603185B5 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by usha.takhisis.invalid (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 72FAB7123; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:41:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:41:57 +0100 From: Stefano Zacchiroli To: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Batteries Included 1.0.0 Message-ID: <20100119124157.GB10388@usha.takhisis.invalid> Mail-Followup-To: caml-list References: <883097.89675.qm@web111509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B536E54.5090906@gmail.com> <4B55924D.10109@motion-twin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4B55924D.10109@motion-twin.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam: no; 0.00; zacchiroli:01 zack:01 0100,:01 cannasse:01 cheers:01 zacchiroli:01 postdoc:01 zack:01 crystal:98 panorama:98 baton:98 dietro:98 c'e:98 sempre:98 wrote:01 On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:06:53PM +0100, Nicolas Cannasse wrote: > >> ExtLib's. If both development teams are on board, I would suggest an > >> explicit deprecation of ExtLib in favour of AAA Batteries. > >This is up to the ExtLib team - our intention is to do much more > >than > You're welcome ;) ExtLib was designed from the start to do "a little". > Good luck with "Batteries" So, just to be crystal clear (which in this cases is essential), can we consider this as a statement that ExtLib will stop its development here seeing Batteries as its own successor? Or is it something else? I know that de facto, large ExtLib development has stopped a while ago, but having a statement such the above will terribly help the community of programmers in orienting their choices and understanding the panorama of available extended libraries. It would also help distributions to decide where to put their packaging efforts (hint hint :-)). If it is indeed the case that you intend to "pass the baton" to Batteries, it would be nice to have such a notice on the ExtLib project page at http://code.google.com/p/ocaml-extlib/ . Thanks for your feedback, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime