Browse thread
[Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library
-
Vasili Galchin
- james woodyatt
-
Richard Jones
-
Shawn Wagner
-
Eric Stokes
-
Vasili Galchin
-
Eric Stokes
-
Vasili Galchin
-
Matt Gushee
-
Richard Jones
-
Nicolas Cannasse
-
Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons
- Benjamin Geer
- Alex Baretta
- Sven Luther
- Wolfgang Müller
-
John Carr
-
Richard Jones
-
oliver@f...
-
John Carr
-
Richard Jones
- Jacques Garrigue
- Benjamin Geer
- Michael Vanier
- Sven Luther
-
Richard Jones
- Sven Luther
-
John Carr
-
oliver@f...
-
Richard Jones
-
Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons
-
Nicolas Cannasse
- Shawn Wagner
- Vasili Galchin
- Vasili Galchin
-
Richard Jones
-
Matt Gushee
-
Vasili Galchin
-
Eric Stokes
-
Vasili Galchin
-
Eric Stokes
-
Shawn Wagner
- Stefano Zacchiroli
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Benjamin Geer <ben@s...> |
| Subject: | Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library) |
Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons wrote: > Mieux vaut ne pas imposer de bibliotheque par defaut que d'en imposer > une mauvaise, quitte a paraitre peu reactif. Or aucune des > bibliotheques citees ne fait l'objet d'un consensus, meme partiel. The problem is not simply that INRIA is too cautious, it's that there is no visible process for accepting enhancements to Caml or its libraries from outside INRIA. INRIA very rarely responds at all, either positively or negatively, to proposed modifications from outsiders (the sole exception seems to be bug fixes). Recently there has been a long discussion on this list about enhancing the Unix module, and no one from INRIA has said a word about it; this is very discouraging. Has ocaml-lib.sourceforge.net been rejected? Is INRIA silently working on its own library enhancements which will be incompatibly replace some of the enhancements developed by the community? Is there a plan for the future development of Caml? We are like the man in Kafka's novel _The Trial_, who stands for years at the door of the Law, and is never told whether he will be seen, or when, or if not, why not. Compare this to what happens in successful, healthy open-source communities: GCC has a development plan (http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html). The core developers discuss all proposed enhancements on the mailing list. The steering committee makes clear, timely decisions about which changes will be included in each release. Thanks to this plan, a wide variety of companies and individuals contribute to GCC. Python has excellent standard libraries not because there is always 100% consensus on what to put in them, but because there is a clear process for extending them (http://www.python.org/peps/). The Python project leader responds quickly to proposals, participates in discussion, and makes clear, justified decisions. I think Caml desperately needs an explicit development plan and a clear, efficient process for accepting enhancements from the community. Until it has these, it will not be able to meet the needs of its users; many of its users will be increasingly frustrated, and will eventually abandon it. Ben ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners