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 C02897EE99 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 07:41:55 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of martin.jambon@ens-lyon.org) identity=pra; client-ip=66.111.4.27; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="martin.jambon@ens-lyon.org"; x-sender="martin.jambon@ens-lyon.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Neutral (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of martin.jambon@ens-lyon.org does not assert whether or not 66.111.4.27 is permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=66.111.4.27; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="martin.jambon@ens-lyon.org"; x-sender="martin.jambon@ens-lyon.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@out3-smtp.messagingengine.com) identity=helo; client-ip=66.111.4.27; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="martin.jambon@ens-lyon.org"; x-sender="postmaster@out3-smtp.messagingengine.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai8CAO7at1JCbwQbnGdsb2JhbABZg0OnHJJ3gRYWDgEBAQEBBg0JCRQogiUBAQEEOAgVFgMKAg8LGAkEEggHCQMCAQIBDyQBERMGAgEBDodeAxENsC+EWI8tAwqGUhEGjRKCGoQ2iUeMaIMchRWGFYkI X-IPAS-Result: Ai8CAO7at1JCbwQbnGdsb2JhbABZg0OnHJJ3gRYWDgEBAQEBBg0JCRQogiUBAQEEOAgVFgMKAg8LGAkEEggHCQMCAQIBDyQBERMGAgEBDodeAxENsC+EWI8tAwqGUhEGjRKCGoQ2iUeMaIMchRWGFYkI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,535,1384297200"; d="scan'208";a="50138555" Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 23 Dec 2013 07:41:54 +0100 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.42]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D7920C39 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 01:41:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 23 Dec 2013 01:41:53 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=hdWNALs1/kCPqT653VwDcN ZbDS0=; b=J0wyyrE7UhXERJlqr893g7xyjdS4o15au63S5YV9iVF+9IJhVL3haG lpY+spiQXD3lsoz/W/h4F1u+RCH7Hv3pWRa2BY9BELT1E7CFfY+JcrAWvsvtweoj pevBXDgVvGEmAwo5rpDoZtO+S44oWeHCBoRpZPaNfYTWdd2fbE3/o= X-Sasl-enc: YN40sbVlHEZ2p+aPEC0904CgTCCLQ9gTBXFAsxSiOBK+ 1387780913 Received: from [192.168.2.4] (unknown [98.248.39.171]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 424FB680089 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 01:41:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52B7DB30.3060707@ens-lyon.org> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 22:41:52 -0800 From: Martin Jambon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <20131222140332.GA8080@annexia.org> <20131222140728.GB8080@annexia.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Moving ocaml to github (as well) 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 > 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 > > 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 > > >