[MLton] MLton library project licensing
Vesa Karvonen
vesa.karvonen at cs.helsinki.fi
Sun Oct 8 13:22:49 PDT 2006
I have to agree. As you argue, having both forms of branching makes sense.
-Vesa Karvonen
Quoting Matthew Fluet <fluet at cs.cornell.edu>:
[...]
> I think the "transparent per library branching" has a lot of good
> arguments for it. However, I don't think any of them negate the utility
> of having "per repository branching". Certainly, if mltonlib is being
> developed in parallel with mlton, but being distributed with the standard
> mlton packages, then it makes a lot of sense to branch and tag the
> mltonlib repository at the times when snapshots are taken for distribution
> with mlton. Tags are useful for reconstructing the distribution after the
> fact. I think branches are useful as well, for preparing a snapshot of
> the mltonlib repository for distribution. Since "per library branching"
> is going on during development cycles, there should be a "per repository
> branch" to do nothing more than prepare the whole mltonlib for
> distribution: this includes deleting per library unstable branches,
> ensuring that no stable library revision depends upon unstable library
> revisions, etc.
More information about the MLton
mailing list