[MLton] MLton library project licensing

[Vesa Karvonen]

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.