From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73FBA7EEB4 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:07:00 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of goswin-v-b@web.de) identity=pra; client-ip=212.227.15.3; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="goswin-v-b@web.de"; x-sender="goswin-v-b@web.de"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of goswin-v-b@web.de) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=212.227.15.3; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="goswin-v-b@web.de"; x-sender="goswin-v-b@web.de"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mout.web.de) identity=helo; client-ip=212.227.15.3; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="goswin-v-b@web.de"; x-sender="postmaster@mout.web.de"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqEFABGWD1HU4w8DlGdsb2JhbABEuSSCOYNdFg4BAQEBCQkLCRIpgh8BAQU6TwsYCSUPBSiIMgEWsyIfig6OKYJIYQOWHoVejXE X-IPAS-Result: AqEFABGWD1HU4w8DlGdsb2JhbABEuSSCOYNdFg4BAQEBCQkLCRIpgh8BAQU6TwsYCSUPBSiIMgEWsyIfig6OKYJIYQOWHoVejXE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,598,1355094000"; d="scan'208";a="1266929" Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.3]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 04 Feb 2013 12:06:59 +0100 Received: from frosties.localnet ([95.208.119.3]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lb25F-1UhkWR1fbN-00kjVm for ; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:06:58 +0100 Received: from mrvn by frosties.localnet with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1U2Jt3-0001gb-Di for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:06:57 +0100 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:06:57 +0100 From: Goswin von Brederlow To: caml-list@inria.fr Message-ID: <20130204110657.GB2935@frosties> References: <20130131010339.0bb90e1aca528ff49339998f@gmail.com> <20130131092106.GA20713@frosties> <510CEA1B.2070809@vb.fdn.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <510CEA1B.2070809@vb.fdn.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:4+PNSXnnjCKT43xtfzLRoUTCSrztaiwiP1W5zP+5jDz P4VVln6uKy4S3fKlkLtnWwhH07vFVgVgkODEeHF0RjJWsBrn+e 7ms0Upvu6okiF2XiFLbzbkL9dRUbdfvoXH/Ws4T33Y6wjhIAdS VyYV8ngOGBOb7eF/Lz3mURhSPYqX6yyYEEB3/2qP+CBblvQbiL YufPP8t91MczUNWC4XCSQ== Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [ANN] ocurl forked and 0.5.4 released 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