caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Benedikt Meurer <benedikt.meurer@googlemail.com>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: [Caml-list] OCaml maintenance status / community fork
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:25:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1B0D83BD-1902-4F7C-B3FB-B759122D6AB9@googlemail.com> (raw)

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 frustrating for OCaml contributors and even worse for OCaml users. I suspect that this is one of the top reasons why there are only a few active contributors to OCaml (and the number of active users, at least on the mailing list, is declining).

I understand that INRIA does not necessarily pay people for full time maintenance jobs on OCaml (and Coq), and the official dev team is probably already doing as much as possible to maintain OCaml. 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'd therefore propose to open up OCaml development to a wider range of developers / contributors, to ensure that OCaml will be ready for the (functional programming) future. There are already various "OCaml forks" in the wild, with different goals and patch sets, so simply starting another fork would be rather useless. Instead I'd suggest to bundle efforts in a new "OCaml community fork", which is always based on the most recent upstream OCaml release (starting point would be 3.12.1 for now), and takes care to review and integrate pending patches as well as developing and testing new features. Let's say we'd name the fork "OCaml-ng", then we'd try to release a new patch set every month or two, based on the official OCaml release, i.e. "ocaml-3.12.1+ng201112" and so on, to get early testing and feedback (should work together closely with the Debian/Ubuntu/etc. OCaml maintainers).

With this process, OCaml upstream could merge (tested) patches from OCaml-ng once they proved working in the wild, and thereby

1. maintenance overhead for INRIA people is reduced,
2. maintenance status of OCaml would be way better,
3. there would be a lot less frustration for possible contributors, and
4. users benefit from a better and more up to date OCaml.

Now that does of course raise a few questions:

1. What is the opinion of the official development team / INRIA on this?
2. Who would help with the community fork?
3. What about infrastructure?

Feedback and suggestions are welcome.

Benedikt

             reply	other threads:[~2011-12-06  8:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-12-06  8:25 Benedikt Meurer [this message]
2011-12-06  9:17 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2011-12-06 10:08   ` Gaius Hammond
2011-12-06  9:31 ` rixed
2011-12-06 12:10   ` Benedikt Meurer
2011-12-06  9:42 ` Kakadu
2011-12-06  9:48   ` Joel Reymont
2011-12-06 10:51   ` Fabrice Le Fessant
2011-12-06 10:58     ` Stefano Zacchiroli
2011-12-06 16:12       ` Fabrice Le Fessant
2011-12-06 19:24         ` Mehdi Dogguy
2011-12-06 10:00 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2011-12-06 12:20   ` Benedikt Meurer
2011-12-06 10:35 ` Gabriel Scherer
2011-12-06 11:31   ` Gerd Stolpmann
2011-12-06 12:34     ` Benedikt Meurer
2011-12-15 18:49     ` Jérôme Benoit
2011-12-06 13:09   ` Goswin von Brederlow
2011-12-06 22:48   ` oliver
2011-12-07  7:23     ` Adrien
2011-12-06 11:40 ` Gabriel Scherer
2011-12-06 12:02   ` Stefano Zacchiroli
2011-12-06 12:16     ` Joel Reymont
2011-12-06 12:43       ` Stefano Zacchiroli
2011-12-06 12:27   ` François Bobot
2011-12-06 13:01   ` Benedikt Meurer
2011-12-06 13:52 ` ivan chollet
2011-12-06 14:42   ` Alexandre Pilkiewicz
2011-12-06 15:10     ` Gerd Stolpmann
2011-12-06 15:14       ` Yitzhak Mandelbaum
2011-12-06 15:24         ` Pierre-Alexandre Voye
2011-12-07  9:36       ` Goswin von Brederlow
2011-12-06 22:07 ` oliver
2011-12-07  9:39   ` Goswin von Brederlow
2011-12-07 20:42     ` oliver
     [not found] <201112071100.pB7B0N8J020839@walapai.inria.fr>
2011-12-07 13:59 ` tools
2011-12-07 14:37   ` Jérémie Dimino

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1B0D83BD-1902-4F7C-B3FB-B759122D6AB9@googlemail.com \
    --to=benedikt.meurer@googlemail.com \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).