Re: [Caml-list] About contributions to the Standard Library

[Adrien Nader <adrien@notk.org>]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016, Daniel Bünzli wrote:
> Le lundi, 11 juillet 2016 à 10:48, Adrien Nader a écrit :
> > For debian oldstable, the OCaml release arrived only a
> > few weeks, at most months, late; I wouldn't blame Debian for not going
> > with something that was known to not be very stable.
> 
> Sure, but what strikes me is that people feel that supporting the OCaml version distributed by mainstream system packagers is important.  
> 
> I see the later as being a medium to distribute end-user application that are installable by the same package system not as a medium that is useful to support the working OCaml programmer.

I see it as important because things get a bit sad if your code never
reaches end-users.
If you look around, you'll see that many large-ish projects have shifted
to time-based releases. That said, I don't like calling them
"time-based" because the approach is more to limit the scope and avoid
schedule slips by having a clear and simple measurement (time left
before the given day) that is also known in advance.

Of course, with time-based releases, it is also possible to synchronize
in order to always release right after distros freeze. The idea is
rather to take them into account because getting stable and
reasonably-recent software to users is really. Releasing stable versions
is a time-consuming work not matter the topic and I don't find it sane
to not take them into account.

-- 
Adrien Nader