Re: [Caml-list] OCaml maintenance status / community fork

[Benedikt Meurer <benedikt.meurer@googlemail.com>]

On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:00 , Gerd Stolpmann wrote:

> I'd say it depends very much for which kind of work the community fork is
> used. If it is just for enhancing the standard library, please don't do it
> - there are as many opinions as contributors. If it is for fixing bugs I'm
> for it - provided there is a process to get the fixes back to the original
> Ocaml version.

Yes that'd be one major goal: to get patches applied (whether they're fixing bugs or adding features). Whether it will be possible to get the "original OCaml version" updated using a new process or whether the "original OCaml" will be obsolete at some point,... I don't know. I guess time will tell. At least we'll see some more activity in the OCaml core area again.

> Regarding your work, Benedikt, I'm not sure what would be the best. It's
> highly interesting work, but it's deeply changing the compiler, so
> probably not something a community of volunteers could review (although
> they could test it at least).

I can't tell you right now how these things are going to work out, I'm open for suggestions. Most of what I have in the pipe (and others who sent me their patches for review because they haven't received any response from the OCaml team) does not "deeply change the compiler". The largest patch, which I'm working on right now, is about replacing the existing arm port with two new ports, armel and armhf, to overcome the various issues with the existing port (and to utilize VFP/Neon hardware in modern ARM boards/netbooks).

> I'd see this more as an effort to organize help for the core team, and it
> would be essential that the "fork" is working in both directions.

... or as an effort to disconnect "core team" and INRIA...

> Gerd

Benedikt