Re: [Caml-list] Moving ocaml to github (as well)

[Martin Jambon <martin.jambon@ens-lyon.org>]

I would like to point out that Github is as much about people as it is 
about code. Much of the communication happens there and discussions are 
usually linked to a particular context (code diffs) unlike mailing-lists.

Github also makes it easy to judge the health of a project in a few 
clicks. This matters for product adoption because the following 
questions will arise:

1. Is the project popular enough so I won't have to fix any bug myself?
(God I hope I'll stay among the 99% passive users)

2. If a few problems are expected, will I be able to fix them myself?
(nothing like a good hack once in a while)

3. If bigger problems happen, can I afford to become a contributor?
(you guys better be really awesome)


Martin

--
Feel free to downvote this message.


On 12/22/2013 08:41 AM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
> I understand that this is a matter of "perception" that relies on
> subjective aspects, but I would like to point out that, objectively,
> there is not much difference between a github-style workflow and what
> currently happens for "small contribution" (one-shot patches).
>
> Probably the most common workflow on github is approximately as follows:
>    (1) clone the github repository
>    (2) get it to compile by following whatever instruction (OCaml has an
> INSTALL file)
>    (3) do your change, compile again and test
>    (4) fork the github repository (some peopele do that at point (1)),
> push your changes, submit a pull request
>
> By comparison, my current OCaml workflow is as follows:
>    (1) clone the github repository
>    (2) identical
>    (3) identical
>    (4) use "git format-patch HEAD~1" to get a patch, submit it on mantis
> (New Issue, upload a file)
>         (recently some people just provide a link to the commit on their
> github or wherever and it works just as well)
>
> I understand that github provides an homogeneous experience so that
> users don't have to wonder about what the workflow is, and that OCaml
> users may need more explicit information about how to contribute (we can
> work on that). I'm a bit surprised that an expert user that is a
> long-time contributor on the bugtracker, such as Markus, would perceive
> a difference in difficulty/welcome-ness here.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Markus Mottl <markus.mottl@gmail.com
> <mailto:markus.mottl@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     The reason why the "massive influx of developers" hasn't happened may
>     be that making small contributions is perceived as more costly when
>     the authoritative repository is not on Github.  Most contributors only
>     make small contributions.  If you make large and/or frequent
>     contributions, the cost may seem negligible as you adjust to the
>     "indirect" workflow.  At least what concerns me, I might have
>     submitted a tiny patch here or there, but felt that the development
>     model is not open enough for small or less important contributions so
>     I didn't bother.  That's why I'd also love to see the OCaml team go
>     "distributed", preferably either Git (github) or Mercurial
>     (Bitbucket).
>
>     Regards,
>     Markus
>
>     On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Richard W.M. Jones
>     <rich@annexia.org <mailto:rich@annexia.org>> wrote:
>      > And:
>      >
>      > (3) To all intents and purposes, OCaml is already on github, ie:
>      > https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml .  So the massive influx of developers
>      > should have already happened.
>      >
>      > Rich.
>      >
>      > --
>      > Richard Jones
>      > Red Hat
>      >
>     > --
>     > Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
>     >https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
>     > Beginner's list:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
>     > Bug reports:http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>
>
>
>     --
>     Markus Mottl http://www.ocaml.info markus.mottl@gmail.com
>     <mailto:markus.mottl@gmail.com>
>
>