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 5AFDD7EC6E for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:04:49 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of adrien@notk.org) identity=pra; client-ip=91.121.71.147; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="adrien@notk.org"; x-sender="adrien@notk.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of adrien@notk.org designates 91.121.71.147 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=91.121.71.147; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="adrien@notk.org"; x-sender="adrien@notk.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@nautica.notk.org) identity=helo; client-ip=91.121.71.147; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="adrien@notk.org"; x-sender="postmaster@nautica.notk.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AioFAPSr01JbeUeT/2dsb2JhbABagws4gwJStmqBDRZ0giUBAQEDASMPATsQCwsYAgIFEw4CAg8FGDGIDwwJqVWaZBeBKY0GBwEBVoJvNYETBJgWAYEwkGWDLjuBLAkX X-IPAS-Result: AioFAPSr01JbeUeT/2dsb2JhbABagws4gwJStmqBDRZ0giUBAQEDASMPATsQCwsYAgIFEw4CAg8FGDGIDwwJqVWaZBeBKY0GBwEBVoJvNYETBJgWAYEwkGWDLjuBLAkX X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,651,1384297200"; d="scan'208";a="52947487" Received: from nautica.notk.org ([91.121.71.147]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 13 Jan 2014 10:04:45 +0100 Received: by nautica.notk.org (Postfix, from userid 1003) id B7388C009; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:04:44 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:04:44 +0100 From: Adrien Nader To: "caml-list@inria.fr" Message-ID: <20140113090444.GA8904@notk.org> References: <20140111152357.GB28133@notk.org> <20140111154146.GA976@lenat> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20140111154146.GA976@lenat> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Doing compiler patch review with a dedicated mailing-list On Sat, Jan 11, 2014, Simon Cruanes wrote: > Le Sat, 11 Jan 2014, Adrien Nader a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > (and sorry for the mail sent a few minutes ago :) ) > > > > I'd like to know what people think about having a mailing-list for > > reviews and tests of patches to the compiler and tools around it. > > > > The idea is to do something similar to the kernel mailing-list. I mostly > > like mantis and it is possible to attach files but it becomes fairly > > unreadable after a while. The audience is also mostly limited to people > > who are subscribed to the bug report. I hope this reduces the work and > > burden of reviewers and especially commiters. > > > > The goal is not to replace patches on mantis and you shouldn't believe > > this has been blessed by the core development team (nor mentionned to > > them actually). Instead, I hope this helps do quicker (and smaller?) > > iteration of patches. > > > > One example where I believe this would be useful is for the > > cross-compilation patches I've started getting upstreamed around one > > year ago. There are still many patchs which touch many files and > > definitely need tests on platforms I don't usually run. > > > > Another case is for patches which touch bits of the compiler almost > > no-one is familiar with; I think this could help get more input. > > > > Rules would be similar to http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html but less > > strict (that is also mostly something to begin with). > > In addition, there should be no specific reviewer or set of reviewers > > for a given component; it is also known, acknowledged and perfectly fine > > that the available time of reviewers varies. In practice this means you > > should not refrain from commenting on a patch because someone else > > usually handles a given topic. > > > > Of course, this requires two things: a bit of infrastructure (I hear > > it's much easier to create mailing-lists on ocaml.org than on inria's > > servers), and people (i.e. you). Anyone interested and willing to > > participate? > > The idea is nice. I don't know the compiler's internals and would > certainly be interested in being familiar with them. Is a new mailing > list necessary - do you envision massive traffic on the list - or could > the current ocaml list, which is usually quite quiet, be used for > compiler discussions? I don't think there would be massive traffic but probably some bursts (especially when there are 10 patches or more in a series) and that could be annoying to some. Also, I'd say the caml-list actually has some traffic on it. > The parallel with the recent suggestion to host wikis on ocaml.org to > centralize information about how to do parallelism (or other > similar topics regarding the high-level use of OCaml) may be interesting. > Would a small-ish wiki about the compiler and compiler's hacking be > useful? Can a mailing-list play the same role as a wiki? Well, I don't know compiler internals very well either so it's difficult for me to say. However having information on how to contribute back (be it a wiki page or a static page updated through git) would definitely be useful as there is a growing number of people asking for such infos (at least on IRC on #ocaml). -- Adrien Nader