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 pB79dUD9016773 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:39:32 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvQBABwz307ZSMDjjmdsb2JhbABDqlIiAQEBAQkLCQkSBSKBcgEBBAE6PwULCyElDwEEKCETFIdzArVoizQEmiGMbg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,313,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="134297677" Received: from fmmailgate02.web.de ([217.72.192.227]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2011 10:39:32 +0100 Received: from moweb002.kundenserver.de (moweb002.kundenserver.de [172.19.20.108]) by fmmailgate02.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC88E1BB286A7 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:39:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from frosties.localnet ([95.208.118.96]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb001) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0MZDga-1RDOlr1D4e-00KyYW; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:39:31 +0100 Received: from mrvn by frosties.localnet with local (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RYDyM-0007xf-PX; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:39:30 +0100 From: Goswin von Brederlow To: oliver Cc: Benedikt Meurer , caml-list@inria.fr References: <1B0D83BD-1902-4F7C-B3FB-B759122D6AB9@googlemail.com> <20111206220739.GA2039@siouxsie> Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:39:30 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20111206220739.GA2039@siouxsie> (oliver@first.in-berlin.de's message of "Tue, 6 Dec 2011 23:07:39 +0100") Message-ID: <87pqg0oh4d.fsf@frosties.localnet> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) XEmacs/21.4.22 (linux, no MULE) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:MUHhBlaAbDvW1TT2Ns6P3F8oXzhK7AexNi1ZWYpQYIg w9ktno0PhWcNyq26lRJ+tZ2JZDDQSTFbcCQtz6QVjSyBiearfD FMCJKSWbXCDwi/0hxZDmaYjUjU6OXrRd85gUFqdN0xRsXM9MU4 oYjocOY6i+DY2hgYVO1N7JWeUFSwDDlk89UN2j/LkqH9PLk/8t yb+3Kai0ZISmcb3CdgFsA== Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml maintenance status / community fork 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. MfG Goswin