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 3A7417EE99 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 17:42:11 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of gabriel.scherer@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.214.53; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="gabriel.scherer@gmail.com"; x-sender="gabriel.scherer@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of gabriel.scherer@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.53 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.214.53; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="gabriel.scherer@gmail.com"; x-sender="gabriel.scherer@gmail.com"; 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@mail-bk0-f53.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.214.53; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="gabriel.scherer@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-bk0-f53.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: As8DACIVt1LRVdY1lWdsb2JhbABYg0NVpkiKJIhTgQwIFg4BAQEBBw0JCRIqgiUBAQEDAUABFAcPAwsBAwELBgULDQ0hIQEBEQEFAQoSBhMSh10BAwkIDaUAjFyDCY5kChknAwpkhW4RAQUMjQaCDwQHhDYEliuBbIEwiyqDTRgphFo7 X-IPAS-Result: As8DACIVt1LRVdY1lWdsb2JhbABYg0NVpkiKJIhTgQwIFg4BAQEBBw0JCRIqgiUBAQEDAUABFAcPAwsBAwELBgULDQ0hIQEBEQEFAQoSBhMSh10BAwkIDaUAjFyDCY5kChknAwpkhW4RAQUMjQaCDwQHhDYEliuBbIEwiyqDTRgphFo7 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,532,1384297200"; d="scan'208";a="50085297" Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com ([209.85.214.53]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 22 Dec 2013 17:42:10 +0100 Received: by mail-bk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id na10so1760041bkb.40 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 08:42:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=dxA2ymfSC+xxwo0LItn2fOHCFJN8QM/dyx53Fl39c24=; b=AXElhoRbjWdHcl3IN51vCpzM+ib9pju3KADRPStHsAVwO0DycDs9qf3hfKlb+ALV6J 1smVn4hlP9MhHhZvNt7zYQMUDnAwXCh54q/V++NYrpYy0ZFN/1ldl383hO9qIyh6xuUe IvagYHzf7Wbpd6FKrbAgH1GWsNG2COxZ4dnBhgfAslSwT6sRmmgTiVYipboQNog+Csd/ CAGuaN85Yps2uzF1C5H0GHYLSXEcTnwa6NMMVsCqVBxksEvmFqEOaihMu4GQ0A5C4BOF FsGjTqdugipdgVqNB+C5K3N8v4S3+MYNh74bKgDP6L/fnTFv2exaKq4O6Y5+n+cd9f7N PrQQ== X-Received: by 10.204.167.141 with SMTP id q13mr9054747bky.2.1387730529844; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 08:42:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.45.5 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 08:41:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20131222140332.GA8080@annexia.org> <20131222140728.GB8080@annexia.org> From: Gabriel Scherer Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 17:41:29 +0100 Message-ID: To: Markus Mottl Cc: "Richard W.M. Jones" , Yotam Barnoy , Ocaml Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec52d4d0146a75004ee2231a1 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Moving ocaml to github (as well) --bcaec52d4d0146a75004ee2231a1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 > --bcaec52d4d0146a75004ee2231a1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I u= nderstand that this is a matter of "perception" that relies on su= bjective aspects, but I would like to point out that, objectively, there is= not much difference between a github-style workflow and what currently hap= pens for "small contribution" (one-shot patches).

Probably the most common workflow on github is approximately as follows= :
=A0 (1) clone the github repository
=A0 (2) get it to c= ompile by following whatever instruction (OCaml has an INSTALL file)
=A0 (3) do your change, compile again and test
=A0 (4) fork the g= ithub repository (some peopele do that at point (1)), push your changes, su= bmit a pull request

By comparison, my current OCaml workflow i= s as follows:
=A0 (1) clone the github repository
=A0 (2) identical
=A0 (3) identical
=A0 (4) use "git format-patch HEAD~1&quo= t; to get a patch, submit it on mantis (New Issue, upload a file)
= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (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 th= at users don't have to wonder about what the workflow is, and that OCam= l 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-t= ime contributor on the bugtracker, such as Markus, would perceive a differe= nce in difficulty/welcome-ness here.

<= div>


On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Markus = Mottl <markus.mottl@gmail.com> wrote:
The reason why the "massive influx of developers" hasn't happ= ened may
be that making small contributions is perceived as more costly when
the authoritative repository is not on Github. =A0Most contributors only
make small contributions. =A0If you make large and/or frequent
contributions, the cost may seem negligible as you adjust to the
"indirect" workflow. =A0At 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. =A0That's why I'd also love to see the OCaml t= eam 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> wrote:
> And:
>
> (3) To all intents and purposes, OCaml is already on github, ie:
> https://g= ithub.com/ocaml/ocaml . =A0So the massive influx of developers
> should have already happened.
>
> Rich.
>
> --
> Richard Jones
> Red Hat
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list. =A0Subscription 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 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.ocaml.info =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0markus.mottl@gmail.com

--bcaec52d4d0146a75004ee2231a1--