@dra27 instead of the appveyor patch for unreleased flexdll, can we just use your fork in src_ext/Makefile directly?

I have been using flexdll master ocaml/flexdll@bd636de in my
experiments. I don’t think that using @dra27 flexdll fork is
good. In a great scheme of things, a patch that is needed for
Opam’bootstrap should be included upstream — and @dra27 has write
access to the repo.
It’s possible to download a tar.gz of a specific commit of a repo from GitHub
(as a matter of fact, of any git ref):
https://github.com/alainfrisch/flexdll/archive/bd636def70d941674275b2f4b6c13a34ba23f9c9.tar.gz.
I don’t see a major downside to this approach. We’re not tracking
'master' since we’re pinning a revision.
For other dependencies of Opam, it could be even better since we would
not have to carry patches that already have been merged in master.

I'm referring to the Appveyor workaround - that should be reconciled with src_ext/Makefile. I'd prefer we didn't carry CI specific patches.

Sorry for the lag. There will/should be a release of flexdll incorporating that patch prior to the release of OCaml 4.11 (as noted, it is now in flexdll master) which should make this moot. I agree with @MisterDA that pointing to my repo is a bad idea (especially as I may arbitrarily delete that branch when I next hoover my fork...)