Menu
▾
▴
ocaml-lib-devel
|
From: Janne H. <jjh...@gm...> - 2008-05-01 20:11:14
|
[Adding ocaml-lib-devel] Hi David, How many changes are you going to make and how big are they going to be? When I offered to help Nicolas maintain ExtLib, he said he'd want to err on rather conservative side as far as changes to ExtLib go. Are you sure you want to make your changes directly into ExtLib or couldn't you ship ExtLib as a separate library and provide your changes as additional modules that would work well with ExtLib? ExtLib is already integrated into several distros (GODI, Debian, Red Hat, etc.) and has a pretty big number of users. IMO having a single "main branch" for ExtLib would make it clear for ExtLib users what is the standard version and what are the "ExtLib extension libraries". At the very least, it would be good if you had a discussion about your changes and goals of your project if you plan on making changes to ExtLib. Janne On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:01 AM, David Teller <Dav...@un...> wrote: > My apologies for being unclear and/or rushing ahead too much. What I > should have written is that Batteries Included will start by being only > ExtLib. I (and whoever else decides to go along with Batteries) will > accept suggestions and requests for features, try to find existing > libraries with appropriate licenses and/or to implement them. Any > implementation falling in the field of ExtLib will be submitted back to > ExtLib, of course. > > I assume there will be a few differences between ExtLib-in-Batteries and > original ExtLib, but I expect they will be marginal and won't come in > the way (right now, the only thing I can think of is extlib.ml, which > may have to be replaced by something a bit bigger). > > Is this less confusing and less scary ? > > Cheers, > David > > > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 12:25 -0700, Janne Hellsten wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > Being one of the maintainers of ExtLib, your below comment confused > > me. > > > > What exactly is your intent? Are you planning on forking ExtLib? How > > is this going to help the OCaml community if we create more > > fragmentation (as opposed to less fragmentation)? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Janne > > -- > David Teller > Security of Distributed Systems > http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller > Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act > brings liquidations. > > |
|
From: Richard J. <ri...@an...> - 2008-05-02 08:54:39
|
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 01:11:19PM -0700, Janne Hellsten wrote: > At the very least, it would be good if you had a discussion about your > changes and goals of your project if you plan on making changes to ExtLib. Agreed ... Discussing the changes you want to make ahead of time will reduce surprises. Also submitting small patches (rather than one huge patch at the end) will allow changes to be reviewed more carefully. Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat |
|
From: David T. <Dav...@un...> - 2008-05-02 11:09:48
|
Ok. What about meeting on IRC one of these days and discussing all that ? Cheers, David P.S.: For those who don't know, I'm Yoric[DT] on #ocaml on freenode. On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 09:54 +0100, Richard Jones wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 01:11:19PM -0700, Janne Hellsten wrote: > > At the very least, it would be good if you had a discussion about your > > changes and goals of your project if you plan on making changes to ExtLib. > > Agreed ... Discussing the changes you want to make ahead of time will > reduce surprises. Also submitting small patches (rather than one huge > patch at the end) will allow changes to be reviewed more carefully. > > Rich. > -- David Teller Security of Distributed Systems http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act brings liquidations. |
|
From: Erik de C. L. <mle...@me...> - 2008-05-02 11:15:51
|
David Teller wrote: > Ok. What about meeting on IRC one of these days and discussing all > that ? Wouldn't it be better to discuss it here on the list. I'm sure we have people from all corners of the globe here and to get everyone on IRC at once would be difficult. Its also nice to have the discussion recorded. Cheers, Erik -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Hey, I've re-dorkulated." -- Prof. Frink (The Simpsons) |
|
From: Richard J. <ri...@an...> - 2008-05-02 11:20:45
|
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 01:11:08PM +0200, David Teller wrote: > On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 09:54 +0100, Richard Jones wrote: > > Agreed ... Discussing the changes you want to make ahead of time will > > reduce surprises. Also submitting small patches (rather than one huge > > patch at the end) will allow changes to be reviewed more carefully. > Ok. What about meeting on IRC one of these days and discussing all > that ? The trouble is that IRC doesn't make very much of a permanent record. We'd just like to be involved - what changes are you planning to make? New functions? If so, what new functions? Bigger changes than that? If these are just build changes, they can probably be confined to the 'Batteries Included' distribution, but if they involve significant changes to extlib, particularly ones which could create an extlib variant from a programmers point of view, then they should be discussed here. Early discussion and small, early patches are much better than just dumping a huge patch on the project at the end (not that I'm suggesting you will do that, but I have seen this done to open source projects, and the results are not pretty). Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat |
|
From: David T. <Dav...@un...> - 2008-05-02 13:56:52
|
Ok, as you prefer. Let me sum everything up. In my mind, Batteries Included is several things: * building a comprehensive standard library for an extended distribution of OCaml, from the standard library and existing libraries with compatible licenses -- in this, draw inspiration from the Java or .Net standard libraries, but probably without UI * building a standard extended syntax for the same extended distribution of OCaml * customizing slightly the standard tools (ocamlc, ocamlopt, ocamlbuild, etc.) to get them to use the aforementioned standard library & syntax * marking as "standard" some very much needed tools (I'm thinking mostly about findlib/ocamlfind and rlwrap, possibly menhir) For information, there's currently a hiatus between Batteries Included and Community OCaml, both of which have the same objectives and different design choices. However, I'm pretty sure we'll be able to resolve any problem shortly. I imagine that Community OCaml will end up being the "full distribution" while Batteries Included will end up being one or more modular GODI packages built on top of existing libraries. Now, my current work starts on the library front, with ExtLib and yes, not only your involvement is a possibility, it would even very much appreciated. That work is three-fold: 1. extending ExtLib without breaking compatibility 2. documenting ExtLib as if it were the standard library 3. packaging ExtLib and the Inria standard library (and whatever will join them), from the outside, so as to present a coherent structure. You can find the current version of the code at https://forge.ocamlcore.org/plugins/scmsvn/viewcvs.php/trunk/batlib/?root=batteries This code is experimental. You may also find a rather detailed list of changes made and changes to be done at https://forge.ocamlcore.org/plugins/scmsvn/viewcvs.php/trunk/doc/?rev=4&root=batteries As you may see, I already have made a number of additions to ExtLib. As soon as they are tested, I will submit them as patches, one by one. I hope I won't fall in the pitfall you underline, Richard, but don't hesitate to watch me, as I'm prey to this kind of temptations :) Cheers, David On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 12:20 +0100, Richard Jones wrote: > The trouble is that IRC doesn't make very much of a permanent record. > > We'd just like to be involved - what changes are you planning to make? > New functions? If so, what new functions? Bigger changes than that? > > If these are just build changes, they can probably be confined to the > 'Batteries Included' distribution, but if they involve significant > changes to extlib, particularly ones which could create an extlib > variant from a programmers point of view, then they should be > discussed here. > > Early discussion and small, early patches are much better than just > dumping a huge patch on the project at the end (not that I'm > suggesting you will do that, but I have seen this done to open source > projects, and the results are not pretty). > > Rich. > -- David Teller Security of Distributed Systems http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act brings liquidations. |
|
From: David T. <Dav...@un...> - 2008-05-06 21:32:56
|
By the way, what's the preferred way for submitting patches ? Cheers, David On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 15:57 +0200, David Teller wrote: > Ok, as you prefer. -- David Teller Security of Distributed Systems http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act brings liquidations. |
|
From: Richard J. <ri...@an...> - 2008-05-06 21:44:04
|
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:34:29PM +0200, David Teller wrote: > By the way, what's the preferred way for submitting patches ? To extlib? As unified diffs sent to the mailing list. If you can split it into reviewable chunks, that helps. Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X