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 mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D29ED7FC18 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:20:46 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.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=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-sender="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.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=mail3-smtp-sop.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: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mx.etorok.net) identity=helo; client-ip=62.113.205.31; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-sender="postmaster@mx.etorok.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A6BQDV0eFU/x/NcT5cgwaBLMguAoEUQwEBAQEBAXyEDQEFQDgCDwsYCRMDDwkDAgECAUUTCAKILbU4hViSEAaLDIR0FoQUAZhzkw0igUWCKzwxgkMBAQE X-IPAS-Result: A0A6BQDV0eFU/x/NcT5cgwaBLMguAoEUQwEBAQEBAXyEDQEFQDgCDwsYCRMDDwkDAgECAUUTCAKILbU4hViSEAaLDIR0FoQUAZhzkw0igUWCKzwxgkMBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,587,1418079600"; d="scan'208";a="100204947" Received: from mx.etorok.net ([62.113.205.31]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 16 Feb 2015 12:20:46 +0100 Received: by mx.etorok.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 08eff2dc; for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 13:20:42 +0200 (EET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=etorok.net; h= message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=ml; bh=J5 xmf1idUUdoWCgIrWoBh1hLUro=; b=G0AE8idIg20lK9Wks/9cQ4T4/IPUsMDvtG 3vyYLBChKoBJ/FAZnLsp8udbNO7LqBtdvnhurSX4clspSXP1/6Q4RWnDo3GJKeY0 BGyN35elFLtzIS3HjDXOmKV/vZTldIDw7xrVtTCm0IVK3iOE5ghmNHCz7jMS4zJE nyR+OvDAs= Received: by mx.etorok.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id d21c3488; TLS version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO; for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 13:20:42 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <54E1D2AA.7040509@etorok.net> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 13:21:14 +0200 From: =?windows-1252?Q?T=F6r=F6k_Edwin?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OPAM: retiring 3.12.1 testing? On 02/16/2015 01:04 PM, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote: > Dear OCaml list, > > We are currently testing the following compiler versions on every pull request to OPAM; > > - OCaml 3.12.1 > - OCaml 4.00.1 > - OCaml 4.01.0 > - OCaml 4.02.0 > > We will shortly have to test 4.02.1, and would also like to test trunk snapshots of the > compiler as an "allowed failure". > > Running 6 compiler revisions per package puts quite a bit of stress on our Travis CI > resources, and so it's probably time to retire OCaml 3.12.1 from the testing matrix. > > Before we do this, I'd like to get a sense for how many people still care about ensuring > that their packages work well on the 3.12.1 series, or if there are still distributions > for which this support matters. If there is still sufficient interest, we can continue > to support 3.12.1 for some time. Debian's latest stable (Wheezy) has 3.12.1, and the next release Jessie has 4.01.0 and there is an RC1 installer for it, but AFAIK there is no fixed release date when Jessie becomes stable. Would be nice to have 3.12.1 tests until Jessie becomes stable, but OTOH there are quite a few packages already that only build with >=4.x and if one wants to build them on 3.12.1 they require some minor patches already. Does OPAM support conditionally applying patches? (i.e. only apply patch if compiler_ver <= 4.00.0) Best regards, --Edwin