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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC8817EEAF for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:53:19 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of thomas.gazagnaire@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=74.125.82.178; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="thomas.gazagnaire@gmail.com"; x-sender="thomas.gazagnaire@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of thomas.gazagnaire@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=74.125.82.178; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="thomas.gazagnaire@gmail.com"; x-sender="thomas.gazagnaire@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail-we0-f178.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=74.125.82.178; receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="thomas.gazagnaire@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-we0-f178.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApQBAGLD/lBKfVKyk2dsb2JhbABEgzi6cBYOAQEBAQkJCwkUBCOCHgEBBAE6BgEtCwEDAQsBBQVGNAEFARwGiBoDCQaeZ44lgQqFHicNiFwBBQyMcoNXYQOSWgOJGoh9P4FYgj+Bbw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,515,1355094000"; d="scan'208";a="169355814" Received: from mail-we0-f178.google.com ([74.125.82.178]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 22 Jan 2013 17:53:19 +0100 Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id x48so499807wey.23 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:53:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=GMgpMo7GIOfRQ8Lk11B6abhvyb6U1p9GE8BMUrKxasA=; b=FElMX9UxuYk3b1gGvO8FHuGBD7MPsuP2UG6LHxVMxhRuFyp/yq/31fM1CdeV556jkc J+Psb4khQPLvNfVMwQGPKYY78QYzIhNfqYwMtHBNPDxv7IsL7r745yidq8dCNP1FmtjM IEqlpJMl7DlGx6lUFMfkLlcEkrHiIWLjnp4O3ZWO4sJYW6o7HjufAOd4hZoqzs/Fc+4P H5Hn7jd49t5SIEI5DhTqHl9LryGa6TWMi++HfdEnleMp8j1Wskd94HKWdMfZH+MTJ1WI Z3vO/QQmjXWYbp72kzI1aE+bkU75LXUE/dbqOMOyjJnmMJjkrJzvMjTOV1XwQIr9l3So ac9Q== X-Received: by 10.180.101.104 with SMTP id ff8mr22406101wib.11.1358873596945; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:53:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.84] (volstagg-0.srg.cl.cam.ac.uk. [128.232.32.232]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s10sm24710211wiw.4.2013.01.22.08.53.15 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:53:16 -0800 (PST) Sender: Thomas Gazagnaire Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Thomas Gazagnaire In-Reply-To: <50FEBFD4.9080004@frisch.fr> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:53:14 +0000 Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Daniel_B=FCnzli?= , Philippe Veber , Anil Madhavapeddy , OCaml mailing-list , Mirage List Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <83C3BD2D-58AF-4E24-987E-D9E836674D49@ocamlpro.com> 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> To: Alain Frisch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Subject: Re: Opam package publication (was Re: [Caml-list] [ANN] beta-release of OPAM) > Concretely, I guess that publish a repo means setting up a server somewhe= re. I don't think that everyone can easily do that or want to invest so mu= ch effort only to submit a single package. >=20 > What's the benefit of the git/github submission workflow? I don't immedi= ately 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). The goal is to have external tools looking at all pull request, running tes= ts, and giving quality feedback to opam-repository gatekeepers. Pull reques= ts are also a good place to start discussion about packages. This can be do= ne outside of github (on a mailing list for instance) but that's mean reinv= enting the wheel as github pull-request worflow is actually specifically de= signed for this. But as I said, I'm happy to help people submit packages mo= re easily, so having an 'opam-tools' package with command-line interfaces t= o help packager could be a good idea. Thomas