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 mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 874007EEAF for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:50:50 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of fabrissimo@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=74.125.83.49; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="fabrissimo@gmail.com"; x-sender="fabrissimo@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of fabrissimo@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.49 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=74.125.83.49; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="fabrissimo@gmail.com"; x-sender="fabrissimo@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail-ee0-f49.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=74.125.83.49; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="fabrissimo@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-ee0-f49.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApEBAPPB/lBKfVMxjWdsb2JhbABEgmuDWrdjFg4BAQEBCQkLCRIGI4IeAQEFIxUIARscAgMMBgULDQICBQ0BCAsCAgkDAgECARERAQUBHBMIAQGIAgEDDwGeZYtlT4FxgQqEewoZJw1ZiAMBBQyBF4tbgQsBA4IWgRMDkloDgy+OaD+EGIFnBxc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,515,1355094000"; d="scan'208";a="191144943" Received: from mail-ee0-f49.google.com ([74.125.83.49]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 22 Jan 2013 17:50:50 +0100 Received: by mail-ee0-f49.google.com with SMTP id d4so3489084eek.22 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:50:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=D34jtkWCnDeBdB7QEI/PdDMf35DjOOsoHnus0pMnx0E=; b=nlnc7pyetnqe9XS8OBJuqbCqJgToy/MXlFUz9PDcJAUD0ee+oSXt4j8xSOHQgO0l7p pTxxTQqikVfoQLI1X0SY7hMPUe0tfJ8t3ImnhZXyW8MsDVeVozT16ELFULS9UxYc2Ug5 r6gpT8cgTD7KMikfKeMUj9hkCTq6QxpnIg2SkyWLs0Vj0VENMz7C48CdfcI5Sor1gTAd VSw5kKuWih68rxEdrCoR2iN3cgnFbMQPrdB0B57KUj9taIOGS62uia91Y2Nvd9VNdeNd 8ZG15LKNA96Ct+1Ny6k2CqLidMwQhOx8F2hx5tj857RTlJrBWqXiukQAKEEp/qMRmHvg LGhA== X-Received: by 10.14.219.72 with SMTP id l48mr74523952eep.37.1358873449597; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:50:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:3013:3:a140:96cb:a7f2:b95b? ([2001:660:3013:3:a140:96cb:a7f2:b95b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q44sm27633950eep.5.2013.01.22.08.50.48 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:50:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50FEC367.7000204@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:50:47 +0100 From: Fabrice Le Fessant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <6833F17C-B642-4ED9-8C8F-2665A9742845@ocamlpro.com> <50F831B6.6020404@frisch.fr> <224865B3-055C-4E03-AA42-9F962AD516D7@recoil.org> <50F92486.2020704@frisch.fr> <50F92FA9.8050707@frisch.fr> <28252449-E0B3-4A0E-A001-57B72712DD99@recoil.org> <4144589AC12E46C09674D6D80D984289@erratique.ch> <50FEBFD4.9080004@frisch.fr> In-Reply-To: <50FEBFD4.9080004@frisch.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Validation-by: fabrice.le_fessant@inria.fr Subject: Re: Opam package publication (was Re: [Caml-list] [ANN] beta-release of OPAM) On 01/22/2013 05:35 PM, Alain Frisch wrote: > What's the benefit of the git/github submission workflow? I don't > immediately see how this is easier for people responsible of > accepting/rejection packages than, say, something based on an upload > interface (or even simpler, an email with an attachment). I think one advantage of the github submission workflow is that everybody can comment on a pull-request, ask for modifications, until the patch seems ok for acceptance. I "opamised" the unstable branch of TypeRex this week (mostly to provide access to the new version of ocp-build, not for the editor that is not ready), and I wrote a simple program "ocp-opamer" to simplify the workflow (it is installed with TypeRex 1.99.1-beta) : 1/ you fork the opam-repository on GitHub 2/ for your package "foobar", you call: ocp-opamer -login your-github-login -opam foobar.opam -descr foobar.descr foobar 1.2.3 http://an.url.for/the.tarball.tgz It will checkout your opam-repository, create the sub-directory and the 'url' file with the md5sum after downloading archive, and upload a new branch 'foobar' to your repository. 3/ from your repository, you send a pull-request to the main rep, for branch 'foobar' Does it sound so complex ? For TypeRex, step (2) is a rule in the Makefile, step (1) has to be done once, and (3) is quite simple... If you think the tool is worth it, it could be added to an "opam-tools" package in the future... --Fabrice