From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 771C481799 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:03:38 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of anil@recoil.org) identity=pra; client-ip=89.16.177.154; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anil@recoil.org"; x-sender="anil@recoil.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of anil@recoil.org) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=89.16.177.154; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anil@recoil.org"; x-sender="anil@recoil.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@dark.recoil.org) identity=helo; client-ip=89.16.177.154; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anil@recoil.org"; x-sender="postmaster@dark.recoil.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqIMAEhc8FFZELGadGdsb2JhbABbgzuqdZM+AwGBLA4BDBUIPIIkAQEFeRALGC5XBhMJiAsIuX6OM184MweDEm4DiSqKXoNXgSmTWBw X-IPAS-Result: AqIMAEhc8FFZELGadGdsb2JhbABbgzuqdZM+AwGBLA4BDBUIPIIkAQEFeRALGC5XBhMJiAsIuX6OM184MweDEm4DiSqKXoNXgSmTWBw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,737,1367964000"; d="scan'208";a="22170604" Received: from recoil.dh.bytemark.co.uk (HELO dark.recoil.org) ([89.16.177.154]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 25 Jul 2013 01:03:37 +0200 Received: (qmail 4899 invoked by uid 634); 24 Jul 2013 23:03:36 -0000 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Check-By: dark.recoil.org Received: from 67.23.204.2.freewirebroadband.com (HELO [10.10.37.169]) (67.23.204.2) (smtp-auth username remote@recoil.org, mechanism cram-md5) by dark.recoil.org (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:03:35 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Anil Madhavapeddy In-Reply-To: <20130725000634.1f271513@gavalla> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:03:31 -0700 Cc: Ocaml Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <07E46E3B-32E0-4958-827A-DF04F165F6B3@recoil.org> References: <1374669368.25411.5@samsung> <1B6BB035-9909-4F0C-9DEA-F713B977A467@ocamlpro.com> <20130725000634.1f271513@gavalla> To: Virgile Prevosto X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on dark.recoil.org Subject: Re: [Caml-list] GODI is shutting down On 24 Jul 2013, at 15:06, Virgile Prevosto wrote: >=20 >> project from the beginning. Basically, three organizations joined to=20= =20 >> create a new software. The discussion about the design wasn't public. >> I was excluded from the beginning - and don't understand why, since >> I made an offer for cooperation when I first heard from Ocamlpro's >> plans (not about OPAM in particular, but other stuff, but I suggested >> to cooperate in package manager questions). I never got a response to >=20 > Presented as above, it can be summarized as "opam developers > arbitrarily refused a cooperation offer". As a potential package > maintainer, hearing this has an impact on my motivation to devote too > much time to it. I would thus be quite interested to see the other side > of this coin. Luckily, the OPAM bug tracking speaks for itself. As the first 'user' of OPAM, I found it incredibly easy to work with the team. Just inspect the issues in reverse order and read the discussions if you want to re-live the early, exciting days of OPAM (spoiler: they weren't very exciting). https://github.com/OCamlPro/opam/issues?direction=3Dasc&page=3D1&sort=3Dcre= ated&state=3Dclosed The "discussion about the design wasn't public" verges on being a farcical statement. The design document was detailed from day 1, and Thomas kept it updated after every major change. Don't believe me? Run: $ cd opam.git $ git log --follow doc/dev-manual/dev-manual.tex The actual discussions of the design were very user-driven, as seen in the issues I linked earlier, and the Mirage list which adopted OPAM early: http://www.openmirage.org/blog/breaking-up-is-easy-with-opam=20 (back then, we needed some pretty nasty compiler hacks to bootstrap various low-level libraries, and OPAM switches did the trick nicely, along with the remote pinning support). Gerd persists in dismissing my "Git-workflow" point as "the most harmless variant". What he doesn't seem to realise is that version control workflow dominates how many industrial users interact with and fix bugs in complex applications based on OCaml. When I coordinated the Xen repositories, I had over 300 active repos and branches to represent all the codeflow, and today there are around 80 OCaml repositories and libraries in Xen Cloud alone. Jane Street publish around 40 repositories, and Mirage has around 30. The only reason I was interested in OPAM in the beginning was this feature, with the rest just being icing on the cake. On the other hand, when this= =20 was pointed out to Gerd in 2008, his reaction was to remove Core from GODI for QA reasons. http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2008/01/f2a634e3ce1d93a047a5= 5316acd08b77.en.html That's really not a helpful response. I still remember the ICFP OCaml tutorial that Yaron and I did in 2011 with some embarrassment. It took almost 2 hours for participants to get OCaml and libraries installed and working. In 2012, when we re-ran the tutorial with a very alpha version of OPAM, it took around 30 minutes (mainly waiting for compiler builds to finish). This year, I expect it to be a non-issue. The year after, users should have binaries packages to make it near-instant. That's progress of the good kind. Time for a group hug! -anil=