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 7071F7EC6E for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 23:30:22 +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: AioFACVo1FJbeUeT/2dsb2JhbABAGoMLOIMCUrZ2gRsWdIIlAQEBBCMPATsbCxgCAgUTDgICDwUYMROICAk2qWSbAheBKY1lgm81gRMEmBYBgTCQZYMuOw X-IPAS-Result: AioFACVo1FJbeUeT/2dsb2JhbABAGoMLOIMCUrZ2gRsWdIIlAQEBBCMPATsbCxgCAgUTDgICDwUYMROICAk2qWSbAheBKY1lgm81gRMEmBYBgTCQZYMuOw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,655,1384297200"; d="scan'208";a="53071576" 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 23:30:21 +0100 Received: by nautica.notk.org (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 2BF25C009; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 23:30:21 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 23:30:21 +0100 From: Adrien Nader To: caml users Message-ID: <20140113223021.GA30935@notk.org> References: <20140111152357.GB28133@notk.org> <20140111154146.GA976@lenat> <20140113090444.GA8904@notk.org> <52D3B71B.40802@cea.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Doing compiler patch review with a dedicated mailing-list On Mon, Jan 13, 2014, Gabriel Scherer wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Daniel Bünzli > wrote: > > It's not only easy to browse, it's *great* to browse: all the web-based mailing list archives I interact with are not even able to follow a thread running across two month. I really feel we're in 2014. > > This is a bit too snarky for me to guess what you want. > > I'm already doing a few reviews on mantis, and occasionally uses the > github in-patch-commenting interface when people send a link to a > github-hosted patch (eg. http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=6274 > ). I would be ready to experiment with a mailing-list or a specialized > review tool, based on what people would prefer. We have a solid github > mirror in place ( github.com/ocaml/ocaml ), people of OCamllabs have > kindly offered to host mailing-lists on several occasions, and have > experimented with, for example, gitlab in the past. > > People of the list, if you have sent or reviewed patches or consider > doing so in the future, do you have a strong preference? If your > peer/friend/colleague wishes to contribute and asks you the place to > go, what will you wish we had? > > (Keep in mind that we don't have a lot of patches sent around for now > (less than a dozen a month), and even less people*time to do the > reviews, so we don't necessarily need a highly tuned über-process.) Reducing reviewer work and/or having more reviewers was the actual goal behind my proposal. Another core aspect is that setting up a mailing-list and putting up a "howto contribute" page takes a few minutes of work unlike migrations of whole systems or the use of forges(*). I was also not thinking of replacing patches and reviews on mantis, more having an additional tool to conduct code review although, of course, I would prefer a single place for that. In any case, having something agreed upon and documented is probably what matters most. On a personal note, I also prefer getting fed with emails for which I will use a decent client with an editor I enjoy rather than a web browser (especially when there's flash on the pages). (*) A word about phabricator too: it has some very nice things on paper and on demo but I've found it makes things easier for frequent users/devs and very bad for others -- Adrien Nader