On Tue 2017.03.21 at 12:22 -0400, kwesterb...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Mar 21, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas <j...@wxcvbn.org> > > wrote: > > > > Daniel Dickman <didick...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Okan Demirmen <o...@demirmen.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Quick poll - anyone want to take this? It's dead upstream for the past > >>> few years and I have no interest in it either, especially the way > >>> ocaml is moving. > >>> > >>> Removing is the idea otherwise. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Okan > >>> > >> > >> removing sounds like a good idea, as you say "especially given the way > >> ocaml is moving". > >> > >> surprised ken hasn't already axed this one yet. > > > > Just to chime in about this one: I have no problem with > > productivity/wyrd going away, but this generic statement: > > > > "especially given the way ocaml is moving" > > > > bugs me. A port written in OCaml will likely depend on OCaml libraries. > > The fact that those libraries can be installed through opam doesn't mean > > that we should remove the port and the aforementioned libraries. > > Exactly. My goal is only to remove unused libraries, libraries that make it > hard to use modern ocaml programming tools and intermediate ports. NOT any > end-user ports and the libraries they use. > > If wyrd is being used then I have no desire to remove it. > > I took "the way ocaml is moving" to be a comment on ocaml language and > ecosystem changes that made wyrd harder to keep running since it died > upstream.
Yes, I was off-base there in where I was going. Really wyrd is going nowhere and that's the only point I meant to make.
