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=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5D6BC6C for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:41:39 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAOcSo0fRVYa4mGdsb2JhbACQLQEBAQEBBgIIBwoWl0qGVA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,292,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="22069149" Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.184]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 01 Feb 2008 21:41:39 +0100 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id w8so1009688mue.4 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:41:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=THECSChHVb73nbJTcPzADtreSiEb4b4jRL4+SGN8qEI=; b=iLuN9a4jcWVA3Blmvh5lFOf2mqfRvaF7he4fG4N/Zlb1kNDWk2SPiCFUvKK7Y1aVCpg9pEbdBdSdDt/hzqN9tZxQssE1ZnFkYItr50g2SSbRybJUeyYpXF2dryhV87dMvAgwBD/keJmb9I0gNpFzOtjSPA0pYQxb8WrzsdLHUvU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=wKXB67AdOoj25sDqOT9ZQCbqyvAg9IpuSkefAMHRmpKAuk7wKbTeEw6dbbxztpI50h7oZ76jZSVkAFWFyIuR7giHyaSTmhnS4nR0PeeYgJ5aG1JFjGVFQ2zHwKaeKv+mYnpvLNgNJkgT62nNpFpE9EpGglpUum2evJgh3wqiRj0= Received: by 10.78.159.7 with SMTP id h7mr7043649hue.17.1201898496122; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:41:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.156.14 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:41:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4a051d930802011241g70c00dcaw2b4836554f156278@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:41:35 -0500 From: "Christopher L Conway" Sender: christopherleeconway@gmail.com To: "Jon Harrop" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] Caml Community Code Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <200802011807.53876.jon@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200802010914.41643.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <4a051d930802010556n22ad973co1a0f357789dafc4c@mail.gmail.com> <200802011807.53876.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8a33619577dd6775 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 inria's:01 forks:01 compiler:01 inria's:01 forks:01 replica:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 caml:02 seems:03 productive:04 clarify:04 On Feb 1, 2008 1:07 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Friday 01 February 2008 13:56:36 Christopher L Conway wrote: > > Jon, > > > > So far as I can tell, there is exactly one person on this mailing list > > who is interested in forking OCaml. > > We should clarify exactly what we mean by "forking OCaml". > > I get the impression that you are asking if I want to make a replica of > INRIA's OCaml, diverge its evolution and steal as many existing OCaml users > as possible. > > > So the relevant questions is: are *you* going to be forking OCaml? > > I want to improve OCaml and I am evaluating how this might be done. Forking is > one possibility. > > One thing I would like to do is try to reconcile existing "OCaml-derived" > distributions, taking the best from each of them. I am happy to call > these "forks" but perhaps that has bad connurtations. Yes, it does. My interpretation is as you have described above: to create a separate, backwards- or forwards-incompatible version of the core compiler without INRIA's cooperation. I think a "fork" under this interpretation would be a mistake. > I would like to encourage existing users to go public with their own forks so > that we can reconcile them in order to build a single, newer, better, > enhanced OCaml that everyone is free to share. > > Lots of other people are thinking along similar lines but I, for one, am not > at all clear on who is doing what and, in particular, what exactly their > goals are. I agree: it is extremely unclear exactly where this "Community OCaml" initiative is going to go. It seems probable that it will provide a channel through which your suggestions for evolving the language can be considered and potentially accepted into an official or quasi-official release. Probably the most productive way you could advance your concerns right now is to advocate for just such a channel: some JSR-like arrangement that will bring INRIA into the loop and allow the community to form a consensus around feature requests. Perhaps no such arrangement will come to pass, or perhaps the community will reject your proposals after a full and fair hearing. I suggest that we wait and see before we resort to loose talk of forking the code. Best regards, Chris