Version franÁaise
Home ††† About ††† Download ††† Resources ††† Contact us †††

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
The OCaml Community (aka back from the Developer Days)
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Romain Beauxis <toots@r...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The OCaml Community (aka back from the Developer Days)
Le Sunday 27 January 2008 14:09:22 David Teller, vous avez écrit :
>     Dear list,

	Hi !

>  During yesterday's OCaml Developer Day, a few important points have
> been discussed. First and foremost, due to extremely limited manpower,
> Inria does not intend to expand on the current OCaml distribution, nor
> even to be in charge of an end-user distribution. Rather, Inria would
> concentrate on the core language, in a distribution possibly smaller
> than the current tarball, while the community should be in charge of
> things such as
> * a standard library distribution (e.g. ExtLib + Camomile + LablGtk
> + ... )
> * binaries & installers
> * testing
> * code repositories (à la CPAN)
> * deciding standard practices (e.g. Unicode)
> * expanding the platform (e.g. development environments, DSLs)
> * maintaining FAQs and tutorials
> * evangelism...
>  How and when all this should happen needs to be discussed. One tool for
> these discussions is the current mailing-list. Another tool is the Cocan
> Wiki ( ).
>  One important thing: every task needs manpower. So please consider
> volunteering.

Sorry I couldn't attempt to the meeting, so perhaps my point has already been 

While I agree it's generally a good idea to rely on the community for 
improvements, I think there's a wide difference between the lack of manpower 
and a community driven organisation.

In particular, if the work are to be joined together, there shall be at some 
point a concrete collaboration between INRIA and the communauty.

It does not mean hiring people, but letting contributors participate in the 
core code too. 
Because, if we say extensions are to be maintained by a community and then we 
need to wait and be confirmed by INRIA for each change that interacts with 
the core, then it might be a loss of energy for both groups, including 

Another question is who will provide machines and means to acheive it.
In particular, a repository à la CPAN for modules would be a great thing, but 
it would have to be supported by some structure...

Not that I suspect any problem for now, but I think this has to be stated 
clearly somewhere.