On 12/19/2011 5:09 AM, Romain Beauxis wrote:
On this point, I believe that it would be very nice to have, indeed, a
clearer integration process and more communication from the core
development team. For instance, if I would be to propose a complete
rewrite of OCaml's build system, I'd like to
Hi all,
2011/12/12 Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org:
On 12/12/2011 11:59 AM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
On Dec 12, 2011, at 11:21 , Xavier Leroy wrote:
- It complicates the lives of OCaml users, packagers, and
3rd-party library developers: what version should they use? what
will be the basis for
Le 10/12/2011 15:45, Xavier Leroy a écrit :
4- Yes, we obviously have problems with PR triaging, in part because Mantis
makes this task more bureaucratic than strictly necessary, but more
importantly because it is often hard to guess who cares about this or that
suggestion, or even what
Le 14/12/2011 13:13, Gerd Stolpmann a écrit :
Not yet, but this is certainly not impossible with a to-be-written
package converter.
So far, there has been nobody who investigated this in detail.
(Actually, I'm a bit surprised that none of the OS packagers had the
idea yet - this could save
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 12:31:07 +0100
Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de wrote:
I would like to comment on a tangential aspect of the rationale you
gave:
Given that OCaml is such a nice language with a lot of useful
frameworks available,
it is too sad to see it loosing ground just
Am Dienstag, den 13.12.2011, 20:36 +0100 schrieb oliver:
Hello,
installing packages in R also is quite easy.
Well, package management for scripting languages is way easier. You can
especially do some of the management at load time. If, for example, a
symbol is missing because a predecessor
On 12/12/2011 11:59 AM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
On Dec 12, 2011, at 11:21 , Xavier Leroy wrote:
- It complicates the lives of OCaml users, packagers, and
3rd-party library developers: what version should they use? what
will be the basis for the packagers's distribution-specific
patches?
Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org writes:
On 12/12/2011 11:59 AM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
On Dec 12, 2011, at 11:21 , Xavier Leroy wrote:
- It complicates the lives of OCaml users, packagers, and
3rd-party library developers: what version should they use? what
will be the basis for the
Le 10/12/2011 15:45, Xavier Leroy a écrit :
For example, have a look at PR/3746, a great example. It took almost
4 years(!) to update the ARM port to softfp (and EABI). At the time
the issue was finally fixed, most ARM application boards were
already shipping with VFP, so the port is lacking
Am Sonntag, den 11.12.2011, 00:28 +0100 schrieb Jesper Louis Andersen:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 15:45, Xavier Leroy xavier.le...@inria.fr wrote:
2- As pointed out already in this discussion, it's not on the Caml compiler
that community efforts are most needed. For example, the most
Xavier Leroy xavier.le...@inria.fr writes:
On 12/08/2011 10:10 AM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
The relevant bug report PR/5404, which includes a backward
compatible patch, is already waiting for a sign of life for 3 weeks
now (maybe wait another 4 years to get the port fixed).
More bile. What's
On Dec 10, 2011, at 00:24 , Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Whether you call it a fork or a distribution doesn't matter.
It does, IMHO. Forking a project allows you to integrate more intrusive
changes, and doesn't force you to stay compatible (in some way) with the
original work. That's, in my
On 12/08/2011 10:10 AM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
Opening up the development of OCaml is a great suggestion, for
example. Personally I'd even suggest to disconnect OCaml and INRIA,
with an independent team of core maintainers (with appropriate spare
time and knowledge). INRIA would still
Le samedi 10 décembre 2011 à 19:10 +, Wojciech Meyer a écrit :
I'm asking, because certainly it would be a very wanted feature. I can
see two major limitations of the current Camlp4/p5 system:
- no way of recursively expand syntax, generate some code and then
re-generate again using
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 15:45, Xavier Leroy xavier.le...@inria.fr wrote:
2- As pointed out already in this discussion, it's not on the Caml compiler
that community efforts are most needed. For example, the most impactful
action that his community could take, in my opinion, is to adopt and
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 12:03:30PM +0100, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
when discussion programming language matters, there is usually an
extraordinary amount of bike-shedding
snip
I would love, for example, a kind of read-only mode where we hear
about the discussion, without adding noise to it
On 12/09/2011 12:50 PM, Jonathan Protzenko wrote:
Just for the record, c...@inria.fr also happens to be list where the
members of the Caml Consortium discuss their issues. There's potentially
private/sensitive information in there, and it's not always clear what
relates to the consortium
On Dec 9, 2011, at 11:37 , Jérémie Dimino wrote:
Le vendredi 09 décembre 2011 à 11:11 +0900, Jacques Garrigue a écrit :
I do agree that the problem with ARM reflect some problem in the current
development
organization, but I don't think that you need to fork to solve it.
*(And note by the
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
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
On 12/09/2011 06:36 PM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
Whether you call it a fork or a distribution doesn't matter.
It does, IMHO. Forking a project allows you to integrate more intrusive
changes, and doesn't force you to stay compatible (in some way) with the
original work. That's, in my
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 08:18:58PM +0200, Török Edwin wrote:
On 12/08/2011 01:11 PM, Pierre-Alexandre Voye wrote:
2011/12/8 Benedikt Meurer benedikt.meu...@googlemail.com
The problem is IMHO that there is no one at INRIA caring about ARM. In an
open model we would have maintainers
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 12:03:30PM +0100, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
Also the development of OCaml seems a bit opaque, we don't know where
the discutions of the core team happen. Maybe it is on c...@inria.fr but
it is not public. I think people are interested (i am) about technical
discutions
Dear caml-list,
I'd like to get back to the original topic, which BTW had nothing to do with
Web 2.0, documentation, books, teaching, Batteries, PR, or whatever other
topics came up. Of course those are important topics too, but hijacking other
threads won't help with either.
There were
On 12/08/2011 10:10 AM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
There were already a few useful comments on the topic, but no statement from
the current INRIA officials. Opening up the development of OCaml is a great
suggestion, for example. Personally I'd even suggest to disconnect OCaml and
INRIA, with an
It's nice to see this thread coming back to the original issue after having
been hijacked. You can notice that contributers to this thread have
opinions but not many facts and arguments to support them.
Contacting the OCaml maintainers privately is definitely not the way to let
the development
On 12/08/2011 10:10 AM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
[...] I'm already pissed off by the fact that it will probably take ages for
someone to even respond to the patch, not to mention that it will take
forever to get it out to the users (well maybe Debian will include the patch
for armhf, but that
On Dec 8, 2011, at 11:46 , Alain Frisch wrote:
On 12/08/2011 11:28 AM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
The problem is IMHO that there is no one at INRIA caring about ARM.
I'm pretty sure you mean core development team, not INRIA. INRIA is a
large research institute, you know. And as I said, the
2011/12/8 Benedikt Meurer benedikt.meu...@googlemail.com
The problem is IMHO that there is no one at INRIA caring about ARM. In an
open model we would have maintainers for the ARM port(s).
Note that if Ocaml compiler would have a C backend, all these problems or
architecture port would
As Alain said, the core team is important, it is the label of quality of
OCaml, but there is a real need to enlarge the existing core team, who
cannot cope anymore with reviewing and integrating all the
contributions. However, it cannot be done by just opening the doors to
all volunteers: people
On 2011/12/08, at 18:10, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
Dear caml-list,
I'd like to get back to the original topic, which BTW had nothing to do with
Web 2.0, documentation, books, teaching, Batteries, PR, or whatever other
topics came up. Of course those are important topics too, but hijacking
Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de writes:
Hi all,
I will not jump in the how to save OCaml from dying because nothing
moves discussion. But just in the nothing moves discussion.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:52 PM, ivan chollet ivan.chol...@gmail.com
wrote:
The current status of OCaml is
oliver oli...@first.in-berlin.de writes:
Hello,
during the last years, more than one person mourned about
this or that dark sides of OCaml.
Even some of the mourning and the proposals had mentioned good ideas and had
positive motivation, after a while it became clear, that the same people
Hi,
I'm responsible for the introduction of OCaml in two companies(
www.incubaid.com , www.amplidata.com ).
This cost me a lot of energy and a few years of my life, I'm sure.
As we now are few years further, so I can look back and reflect a bit.
The whole experience of working with a strongly
Le mercredi 07 décembre 2011 à 05:59 -0800, tools a écrit :
--- LWT: We have experience with the ocsigen people, and a track record of
several lwt bugs discovered, testcases that assert the problem, and patches
to the mailing list or the developers personally.
If it concerns code, 95%
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 10:39:30AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
oliver oli...@first.in-berlin.de writes:
Hello,
during the last years, more than one person mourned about
this or that dark sides of OCaml.
Even some of the mourning and the proposals had mentioned good ideas
Benedikt Meurer benedikt.meu...@googlemail.com writes:
Dear caml-list,
During the last year or two it seems that time and interest in OCaml
maintenance from the official OCaml development team is diminishing. It takes
several months to get a patch reviewed (if at all), which is quite
So what your proposition adds to the existing ocaml forks out there
is that there should be people reviewing and merging incoming patches
and releasing a semi-official community version for each official
release.
The problem with this proposition as stated, in my opinion, is that
the original
Erlang/OTP used to be a lot like OCaml.
Development was done internally at Ericsson and official releases were done
from time to time.
This year the OTP team uploaded the code to Github and started syncing their
internal code frequently.
Reviewing and discussing patches become much quicker
I'd say it depends very much for which kind of work the community fork is
used. If it is just for enhancing the standard library, please don't do it
- there are as many opinions as contributors. If it is for fixing bugs I'm
for it - provided there is a process to get the fixes back to the original
I would like to comment on a tangential aspect of the rationale you gave:
Given that OCaml is such a nice language with a lot of useful frameworks
available,
it is too sad to see it loosing ground just because of it's closed
development process
and lack of time of the official team.
I
On 12/06/2011 10:42 AM, Kakadu wrote:
Does anybody have news about OCamlPro?
Yes, OCamlPro is working on different projects to improve OCaml
(namespaces, better inlining, debugging, multicore gc, etc.), but the
main focus is currently on improving development tools (edition,
refactoring,
I for one would love to see OCaml up on GitHub.
G
--
-Original Message-
From: Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 10:17:46
To: Benedikt Meurerbenedikt.meu...@googlemail.com
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml maintenance
I would like to comment on a tangential aspect of the rationale you gave:
Given that OCaml is such a nice language with a lot of useful frameworks
available,
it is too sad to see it loosing ground just because of it's closed
development process
and lack of time of the official team.
I'm
On Dec 6, 2011, at 10:31 , ri...@happyleptic.org wrote:
The problem with this proposition as stated, in my opinion, is that
the original fork is very easy to do but the following review/release
processes asks for more volunteers time.
I'm willing to spend time and knowledge, and I hope
On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:00 , Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
I'd say it depends very much for which kind of work the community fork is
used. If it is just for enhancing the standard library, please don't do it
- there are as many opinions as contributors. If it is for fixing bugs I'm
for it - provided
On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:31 , Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
I would like to comment on a tangential aspect of the rationale you gave:
Given that OCaml is such a nice language with a lot of useful frameworks
available,
it is too sad to see it loosing ground just because of it's closed
development
Le 06/12/2011 12:40, Gabriel Scherer a écrit :
3. What about infrastructure?
Short answer: Ocamlforge ( http://forge.ocamlcore.org/ ) for mailing
list, bug tracking and homepage, and Gitorious ( https://gitorious.org/
) for code repository hosting.
For reviewing, gerrit seems to be a
On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:40 , Gabriel Scherer wrote:
3. What about infrastructure?
Short answer: Ocamlforge ( http://forge.ocamlcore.org/ ) for mailing list,
bug tracking and homepage, and Gitorious ( https://gitorious.org/ ) for code
repository hosting.
Personally I'd prefer GitHub and
On a side note, it's important to realise that there is no incentive for
INRIA to give up on the centralisation of the OCaml project.
The current status of OCaml is more than stable enough to serve its goals,
which are to teach computer science to french undergrads and provide a
playground for
Hi all,
I will not jump in the how to save OCaml from dying because nothing
moves discussion. But just in the nothing moves discussion.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:52 PM, ivan chollet ivan.chol...@gmail.com wrote:
The current status of OCaml is more than stable enough to serve its goals,
which
Hi all,
I will not jump in the how to save OCaml from dying because nothing
moves discussion. But just in the nothing moves discussion.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:52 PM, ivan chollet ivan.chol...@gmail.com
wrote:
The current status of OCaml is more than stable enough to serve its
goals,
Gerd,
I think this is a great topic, but perhaps we could change the title to keep it
separate from the main discussion?
(e.g. FP-language education)
Yitzhak
On Dec 6, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
Hi all,
I will not jump in the how to save OCaml from dying because nothing
And one of the great sub-topic is how to avoid that students *hate* FP.
When i say to other programmers i code in ocaml, they answer they
absolutely hate this language they have to learn at university. I met this
effect more than 15 times !
There's a great problem of old boring professors who
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@upsilon.cc wrote:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:51:00AM +0100, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote:
For the OCaml distribution itself, OCamlPro will have a different
release cycle for its own version, targetting industrial users, but the
On 12/06/2011 05:12 PM, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@upsilon.cc
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:51:00AM +0100, Fabrice Le Fessant
wrote:
For the OCaml distribution itself, OCamlPro will have a
different release cycle for its own
Hi,
My only complaint about the current development model is that it is a
bit opaque and we don't really know what is happening; we mostly only
see the result once it has been done.
I'd like to know some things like: this feature/patch (will/will
not/might/might not) go in/will be tried/we have
57 matches
Mail list logo
