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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AD2281799 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:06:37 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: Neutral (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of virgile.prevosto@m4x.org does not assert whether or not 129.104.30.34 is permitted sender) identity=pra; client-ip=129.104.30.34; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="SRS0=1uF4=RG=m4x.org=virgile.prevosto@bounces.m4x.org"; x-sender="virgile.prevosto@m4x.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="spf2.0" Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of SRS0=1uF4=RG=m4x.org=virgile.prevosto@bounces.m4x.org designates 129.104.30.34 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=129.104.30.34; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="SRS0=1uF4=RG=m4x.org=virgile.prevosto@bounces.m4x.org"; x-sender="SRS0=1uF4=RG=m4x.org=virgile.prevosto@bounces.m4x.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="spf2.0" Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of postmaster@mx1.polytechnique.org designates 129.104.30.34 as permitted sender) identity=helo; client-ip=129.104.30.34; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="SRS0=1uF4=RG=m4x.org=virgile.prevosto@bounces.m4x.org"; x-sender="postmaster@mx1.polytechnique.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AogCABlP8FGBaB4inGdsb2JhbABbvDiGUBYOAQEBAQEICwkJFCiCJAEBBAF+CwshJQ8tGwYTiAoGBLoPFo4ohUYDl16UZIFv X-IPAS-Result: AogCABlP8FGBaB4inGdsb2JhbABbvDiGUBYOAQEBAQEICwkJFCiCJAEBBAF+CwshJQ8tGwYTiAoGBLoPFo4ohUYDl16UZIFv X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,737,1367964000"; d="scan'208";a="27212861" Received: from mx1.polytechnique.org ([129.104.30.34]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 25 Jul 2013 00:06:36 +0200 Received: from gavalla (bne75-13-78-249-168-217.fbx.proxad.net [78.249.168.217]) (using SSLv3 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ssl.polytechnique.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 238A6140CD242 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:06:36 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:06:34 +0200 From: Virgile Prevosto To: Ocaml Mailing List Message-ID: <20130725000634.1f271513@gavalla> In-Reply-To: <1B6BB035-9909-4F0C-9DEA-F713B977A467@ocamlpro.com> References: <1374669368.25411.5@samsung> <1B6BB035-9909-4F0C-9DEA-F713B977A467@ocamlpro.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP at svoboda.polytechnique.org (Thu Jul 25 00:06:36 2013 +0200 (CEST)) X-Spam-Flag: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.205873, queueID=54983140CD249 X-Org-Mail: virgile.prevosto.1996@polytechnique.org Subject: Re: [Caml-list] GODI is shutting down Hello, Le mer. 24 juil. 2013 16:44:43 CEST, Thomas Gazagnaire a =E9crit : > > In the past days I made the experience that OPAM advocates never > > answer to any of my objections. When I said "GODI has feature xy, > > why doesn't OPAM has this too?" the only response is something like > > "OPAM has this great Github-based workflow" (the most harmless > > variant). Discussion impossible. >=20 > Let's try to be constructive then. I've tried to look for all your > recent objections, let me known if I have missed some. Well, I feel like there is still something that is not answered. Agreed, this is a technical question, but it is probably the bulk of the issue. Namely, this is the beginning of Gerd's email: > 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 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. Best regards, --=20 E tutto per oggi, a la prossima volta. Virgile