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 4CED27EC6E for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:03:44 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net) identity=pra; client-ip=62.113.205.31; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-sender="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net designates 62.113.205.31 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=62.113.205.31; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-sender="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of postmaster@mx.etorok.net designates 62.113.205.31 as permitted sender) identity=helo; client-ip=62.113.205.31; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-sender="postmaster@mx.etorok.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiMFAH//01I+cc0f/2dsb2JhbABAGoMLOINUtmUKgRIWdIIlAQEBBCMPAQ0uCgIPCxgCAgUTAwsCAgkDAgECAUUTCAKIBAk2qE52g2KXHhEGgSmNZRaCWYFImBuBMJBlgy86 X-IPAS-Result: AiMFAH//01I+cc0f/2dsb2JhbABAGoMLOINUtmUKgRIWdIIlAQEBBCMPAQ0uCgIPCxgCAgUTAwsCAgkDAgECAUUTCAKIBAk2qE52g2KXHhEGgSmNZRaCWYFImBuBMJBlgy86 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,653,1384297200"; d="scan'208";a="53019506" Received: from mx.etorok.net ([62.113.205.31]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 13 Jan 2014 16:03:43 +0100 Received: by mx.etorok.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 7907f219; for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:03:41 +0200 (EET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=etorok.net; h= message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=ml; l=1623; bh=9jKScF BDNlWcox6cD1+Vqf5WPWQ=; b=crXaMADpdzgQmODJ1kD+PiKSeQuo8yYrMpT8pM FVa8EMYd0Wt9pfM0F6sWAQQwtzK6V8jOafQlcfQ2nG5UJPuNgWcZJhW1qQN5u48K DxI23T2NFvi8xpoBTS7l2J60/0bEpufUsakX8tMXzsSdEkTfKvHjIGLm9bzlIiU1 oGRto= Received: by mx.etorok.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 2f5ae505; TLS version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO; for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:03:41 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <52D4004D.3000106@etorok.net> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:03:41 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?VMO2csO2ayBFZHdpbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <20140111152357.GB28133@notk.org> <20140111154146.GA976@lenat> <20140113090444.GA8904@notk.org> <52D3B71B.40802@cea.fr> <20140113135723.GS11251@emmental.inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <20140113135723.GS11251@emmental.inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Doing compiler patch review with a dedicated mailing-list On 01/13/2014 03:57 PM, Simon Cruanes wrote: > Le Mon, 13 Jan 2014, Thomas Refis a écrit : >> >>> 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 >>> ). >> >> Since we're talking about it: I was a bit confused with that review. >> Although *I* find the github interface nicer than mantis and the "in >> patch comments" really useful, I didn't know whether I should answer >> your comments on github or on mantis, and people on mantis might not >> see the comments you did. >> So I'm not sure that's really a good approach. (But of course that >> particular patch was about ocamldoc, which no one really cares about, >> so I guess that's ok) > > I like the github interface, but it's clear that it also comes with > vendor lock-in. It is probably a matter of what you're used with, for me - coming from Bugzilla - reporting an issue on Github is more complicated, and less obvious than on Bugzilla. For example I don't know how to mark an issue as a 'feature request', or 'enhancement' as there are no severities; and I always have to be careful of special characters that mess up formatting in the body of the issue, and need to put those in 
 blocks.

I didn't have any considerable problems reporting bugs on Mantis, in fact its probably easier for me than Github, although
I have to admit that I didn't really try searching for bugs on Mantis or Github, and Github might have an advantage there.

Best regards,
--Edwin