Gabriel Scherer
Gabriel Scherer
No opinion, we should let @emillon do as he prefers. But we need a reviewer.
@emillon you should decide whether you want a Changes entry or not. This is good to go, so I am thinking of merging the PR next time I am reminded...
Merged! Thanks @emillon for the fixes, @OlivierNicole for the review, @nojb/@yallop for the technical discussion, and @jmid for your help tracking remaining places to fix.
I cherry-picked this PR in 5.2. (I wrote a Changes entry in the process.) People have been asking for better documentation regarding rooted immediate values, which I agree is a...
The point of the "linking exception" part is to say that it is okay for people to license their own OCaml programs however they want, even if technically they depend...
Note that the linking exception is a distraction here. If you distribute a modified version of the compiler, you must respect the licence of the compiler and the requests it...
I think that this issue is mixing two things: 1. @jonahbeckford is/was interested in clarifications of the linking exception and its application for derivatives of the OCaml compiler 2. he...
My understanding is that we agree on the intent of the linking exception as formulated: the intend is to give more freedom to users of (1) the upstream compiler or...
We discussed this at today's meeting. I agree with @jonahbeckford that having upstream providing some "guidance" is a good move. @Octachron suggests to add this guidance text in HACKING.adoc, as...