Re: [Caml-list] Moving ocaml to github (as well)

[Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4108 bytes --]

I think "which control version software to use" should be strictly the
choice of the developers. I've talked repeatedly with some of the major
OCaml developers about that, and my impression is that, so far, they are
happy to use SVN and see no major reason to change. I respect this choice
and don't believe we should put any pressure on their choice of everyday
tools.

I hear the argument that putting a project on github automagically
increases the amount of external contributions. This might be true, but has
yet to be demonstrated. The major entry-point for OCaml development
discussion (besides this list) is the bugtracker:
  http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/
I believe it is rather clear and easy-to-use (not as powerful as bugzilla,
but not as scary either). If you think more visible documentation of where
to go and how to contribute is needed, I'm ready to help make that happen
(for example a page on ocaml.org). On mantis we accept bugreport, which
sometimes turn into development discussion, frown upon feature requests,
and welcome patches, either uploaded as a diff, or as a link to
whatever-web-mirror-for-wichever-dcvs-you-like ( for example feel free to
fork the de-facto-official github mirror, https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/ ,
and send a link to a commit there ).

My understanding of the "if we did X (which requires some not-fascinating
work), we would have more contributions" kind of suggestions is that there
are often cheap to propose and of doubtful effectfulness (some have been
tried in the past, with not-always-convincing results). Some things have
been done which are really nice, such as the "compiler hacking sessions"
organized in the Cambridge area by Jeremy Yallop and Leo White at
OCamllabs, and I hope we have even more of that in the future.

> The ocaml code seems under-documented, with some files still having
French documentation.
> I have a feeling folks on this list could do a great job adding thorough
documentation to the code
> if a push was made to do that.

Push ! Push ! This is a push !

I agree that the compiler code could be better commented, and have asked
and obtained agreement to encourage and review patches commenting the code.
Please send anything you've got in that direction, and tell the folks on
this list to do the same.

> For example, it appears that one sorely needed feature is proper backend
multiplexing.

Well, I would be happy to help discuss and review patches in that
direction. OCaml developers tend to be conservative in things they accept
upstream (anyone would be after 20 years of continuous development of the
same thing, with mistakes of the past bugging you endlessly), but there are
a few notable "external" contributions at each release, do not hesitate to
provide one of them.

I made a talk at an early OCaml User Paris Meeting about (my perception of)
the distribution development, which may be of interest:

http://gallium.inria.fr/~scherer/drafts/ocaml_paris_meetup_may_2013/draft.html


On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Yotam Barnoy <yotambarnoy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Following on the news that camlp4 has been moved to github, I would like
> to see ocaml moved to github as well (the main repository, that is -- not a
> mirror):
>
> a. The ocaml code seems under-documented, with some files still having
> French documentation. I have a feeling folks on this list could do a great
> job adding thorough documentation to the code if a push was made to do
> that. If people could add some documentation and then make a pull request
> for their documented files, we'd soon have much better documentation.
> b. Better documentation would lead to more people hacking the code, which
> could help accelerate ocaml development. For example, it appears that one
> sorely needed feature is proper backend multiplexing. The llvm backend that
> was developed a couple of years back was forked by some people to develop
> heavy features, and now all of those repositories are experiencing bit-rot.
> The llvm backend could instead be an optional part of the official
> distribution.
>
> Thoughts on this, anyone?
>
> -Yotam
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5184 bytes --]