On Dec 9, 2011, at 18:00 , Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > On 12/09/2011 03:24 PM, Benedikt Meurer wrote: >> >> Right. I would like to place focus on discussing this point, as it >> seems to be the root of the evil. It would be so easy to fix, IMHO, >> and you don't need to give up control by the core team. Why not >> accept a model similar to i.e. the NetBSD project, with a lot of >> committers (experts in their own areas) and 2-3 people to keep an >> eye on the overall direction? > > or instead of changing how OCaml is currently handled by INRIA's team, > we could consider some development model similar to Eglibc's one. Eglibc > is not a fork of glibc, but a glibc distribution.
Whether you call it a "fork" or a "distribution" doesn't matter. It's basically what I described in my initial proposal for a "community fork" (or a "community distribution"). Simply a place where contributors are welcome, patches are reviewed and processed (in a reasonable time frame), with focus on cooperation and communication. If people fear the word "fork", can we agree on a "community distribution" (in the eglibc sense) instead? > http://lwn.net/Articles/333755/ could be an interesting read (for those > who care). While we don't have a Drepper here in OCaml land (yet?), there are certainly a few common problems, Stephane already mentioned OCaml as an unpleasant upstream. > Regards, > Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي Benedikt -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
