From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pBAISOq5022221 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 19:28:24 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhsFAJaj407VuiYS/2dsb2JhbABDhDdQoziCP4EFgXIBAQUMF1YQCQIaAiYCAiwdAQ0GJ4d2o0iRERSBIIkjgRYEpxk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,332,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="122861279" Received: from solaria.dimino.org ([213.186.38.18]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 10 Dec 2011 19:28:18 +0100 Received: from aurora (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by solaria.dimino.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5801980088; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 19:28:18 +0100 (CET) Received: by aurora (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D124440440; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 19:28:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1323541702.32136.8.camel@aurora> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=E9mie?= Dimino To: Xavier Leroy Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 19:28:22 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4EE37070.4010702@inria.fr> References: <55531934-37A5-4CC5-AB67-20CE4CCE8269@googlemail.com> <4EE37070.4010702@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3-3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id pBAISOq5022221 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml maintenance status / community fork (again) Le samedi 10 décembre 2011 à 15:45 +0100, Xavier Leroy a écrit : > 5- Before embarking on patching the core Caml distribution, it wouldn't hurt > to ask (privately) where the priorities are. For instance, I don't see the > point for a linear-scan allocator (Benedikt Meurer) or more efficient > compilation of value let-rec (Fabrice le Fessant), but anyone who would come > up with a GHC-quality function inliner would be welcome like the Messiah. > Likewise, for many years I've been looking for developers to work on the > Windows port(s) of OCaml and never found any. Finally, at the latest OCaml > consortium meeting, the idea of splitting Camlp4 off the core distribution > was floated around; volunteers to take over its maintenance would be most > welcome. I am volunteer for the maintenance of Camlp4. But there is something i don't understand here. Why is there camlp4 and camlp5 ? These two projects do exactly the same thing and are incompatible. So i don't see the point of maintaining them both. We should at least deprecate one. Cheers, -- Jérémie