Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Sorted list
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+ocaml@m...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Sorted list
Jacques GARRIGUE wrote:

> From: Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com>
> 
> > Distributing modifications to the compiler in the form of patches is
> > a bit of a PITA.
> 
> Why?

The main problem is that it requires that the first step of the build
process for the modified source code to be the application of a patch. 
For more extensive modifications the patch can easily grow to an 
unweildy size.

There is also the problem of supplying revision control access to the
modified source code. Providing public revsion control would, I think,
be  considered distribution, but meeting the patches requirement for 
code in RC would be a PITA.

> Please remember that you can still distribute binary versions of
> the modified software,

I was aware of that.

> No, the real problem is that forking is difficult to justify if
> you provide only punctual improvements. So you still want the
> modifications to go into the trunk, not in a specific forked
> version.

Not completely. The JoCaml project is essentially a fork of
Ocaml, but done by people at INRIA. Due to the QPL licensing
issues, for an INRIA outsider to start a similar project (ie
something which requires many modifications, deep inside the
compiler) would be difficult if they wished to provide RC
access.

Erik
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no satisfactory substitute for excellence."
-- Dr. Arnold O. Beckman