Re: [Caml-list] ANNOUNCE: ocamldbi 0.9.8 released

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 09:27:42AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:16:50PM +0100, Richard Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 01:18:42PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Yeah, but you had some concerns about the new ocamldbi not being compatible
> > > with the dbi stuff in extlib.
> > 
> > Ah yes indeed, that is true.
> > 
> > It's a real problem having the Dbi module in ExtLib too.  I think the
> > best thing is for me to ask Nicolas Cannasse to remove it.  In the
> > longer term, Dbi should be either completely in ExtLib or completely
> > separate from it, not a strange mixture of the two as now ..
> 
> Frankly, I have yet to comprehend what purpose Dbi in ExtLib serves.  I
> have seen it there, ignored it, and tried to fathom its purpose in life
> but drawn a blank.  I suppose if somebody wrote a SQL database in pure
> OCaml it could go into ExtLib (there is such a beast for Python called
> Gadfly).  But, AFAIK, no such thing exists.

(yet)

> As to the question about including it in sarge/sid (this was the first I
> heard of a question), you should know that I have been tracking the
> OcamlDBI CVS for some time now, and likely the final release is not much
> different from the one that we already have, which was last updated on
> July 28.  I will, of course, pursue updating to the latest version ASAP.

Well, there have been some incompatible changes yesterday, so ... And using
mod-caml failed with the old version since it tried to load perl into apache,
while i just wanted the postgresql backend.

> For Sven... I do not believe it is appropriate to force this into sarge.
> It should be uploaded to unstable and progress into testing in the usual

Err, the alternative is :

   A) upload the new version to unstable with urgency=medium and let it move to
   testing with the rest of ocaml 3.08.

   B) upload the new version into experimental and keep the old version in
   unstable and thus sarge.
   
> manner.  Forcing untested upstream upgrades into testing opens ourselves
> up to exactly the sort of thing that sarge is supposed to prevent, and
> "the version in testing is outdated" is not, to me, an acceptable reason
> to forsake normal quality assurance procedures.

Well, the version in unstable don't allow me to upload mod-caml, nor
cocanwiki. But see above.

Friendly,

Sven Luther