From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pB7KgNHt013486 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 21:42:23 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhQCABXO307AbSoIe2dsb2JhbABDhQalUCIBAQsLCggUBCGBcgEBBSNWEAsJDwICJgICFBgxExSHdaUlkU8UgSCIajNjBI0zhzeSJQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="134422395" Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 07 Dec 2011 21:42:17 +0100 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de Received: from first (e178037057.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.37.57]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id pB7KgG7X008088 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 7 Dec 2011 21:42:16 +0100 Received: by first (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BF4021540359; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 21:42:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 21:42:15 +0100 From: oliver To: Goswin von Brederlow Cc: Benedikt Meurer , caml-list@inria.fr Message-ID: <20111207204215.GB6698@siouxsie> References: <1B0D83BD-1902-4F7C-B3FB-B759122D6AB9@googlemail.com> <20111206220739.GA2039@siouxsie> <87pqg0oh4d.fsf@frosties.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87pqg0oh4d.fsf@frosties.localnet> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml maintenance status / community fork On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 10:39:30AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > oliver 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 with > > the one or the other good idea, failed badly in other areas. Good, that they > > did not have had too much influence in the development of OCaml. > > > > Even in general I like the community/bazaar, I think in case of OCaml, > > there is a lot of high knowledge in the core team, which was criticized > > by others already, but in the long run, it turned out that the core team > > had their reasons for a lot of decisions, which were criticized. > > Ocaml of course will also have some history-related issues that might be > > changed, but maybe also a lot of decisions inside, which relies on theoretical > > reasoning. > > That is no excuse for not reacting to bug or feature patches. If > there is a reason not to accept a patch then that can be communicated. > > There is no excuse for silence. [...] OK, I can agree here. More communication might be fine. I don't know how much the OCaml team is overwhelmed with work. And I don't know how much time it needs to give feedback; that also depends on the bugtracking tools. If the used tools are too uncnvenient, maybe they could be changed. But that also needs work. I remember that I once had a feature wish. As far as I remember, it was picked up, but also done silently... Last time when I was logged in at the OCaml bugtracker (long ago btw), there were a lot of issues... some bug-reports, some feature wishes. Don't remember if automatic messaging must be activated, but I don't remember that status change was reported to me. When I use launchpad for Ubuntu, then Messages will be delivered automatically to the reporter of a bug. Maybe the toolchain can be enhanced, so that no extra overhead for writing messages is necessary. Ciao, Oliver