Browse thread
Sorted list
[
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: | 2007-08-05 (12:31) |
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