Re: [Caml-list] [ANN] ocurl forked and 0.5.4 released

[Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>]

On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 11:27:39AM +0100, Vincent B. wrote:
> On 31/01/2013 10:21, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >Can you tell us why you need to fork ocurl? Why not continue the original
> >project?
> >
> >And if you must fork then please change the name so the two don't get
> >confused.
> >
> >MfG
> >	Goswin
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This fork started as I (on behalf of the OPAM team) asked for a fork
> of ocurl to include in OPAM since the original ocurl has not been
> updated for a long time, and is not compiling anymore out of the
> box, at least on recent versions of OCaml. Moreover as ygrek said,
> his version accumulates lots of bugfixes meant to be integrated into
> the official branch for a long time already, that could not make it
> because the original author did not answer at all.
> 
> The need of a fork arises from what is mentionned before, mostly the
> original author being unreachable and the changes accumulating too
> much to be kept as separate patches.
> 
> As for changing the name, I would personally not do it since it is a
> rightful continuation of the ocurl project (and is backward
> compatible). I?m suggesting to wait for the original ocurl author to
> reappear to see if we can finally merge the changes.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Vincent

Sounds fine. So it is more a hijacking (due to unreachability) than a
fork. I was just worried that there would be competing bindings under
the same name. But this is fine. Thanks for picking it up.

MfG
	Goswin