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 3CB3F7EC6E for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:28:04 +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=209.85.214.45; 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 209.85.214.45 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.214.45; 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-f45.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.214.45; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="gabriel.scherer@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-bk0-f45.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhoDALK+01LRVdYtlWdsb2JhbABag0NWp02SHYEHCBYOAQEBAQcNCQkSKoIlAQEBBEABGxILAQMMBgULDQ0hIgERAQUBChIGEwgKAodbAQMRDZ1mjFyDCZEPChknAwpkhEYRAQUMjhMGCgYCARwzB4Q3BJgXgTCOeBgphFo7gSw X-IPAS-Result: AhoDALK+01LRVdYtlWdsb2JhbABag0NWp02SHYEHCBYOAQEBAQcNCQkSKoIlAQEBBEABGxILAQMMBgULDQ0hIgERAQUBChIGEwgKAodbAQMRDZ1mjFyDCZEPChknAwpkhEYRAQUMjhMGCgYCARwzB4Q3BJgXgTCOeBgphFo7gSw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,652,1384297200"; d="scan'208";a="52966198" Received: from mail-bk0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 13 Jan 2014 11:28:03 +0100 Received: by mail-bk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id v16so539218bkz.18 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 02:28:03 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k2RzgqwFOo05SZ4vKofLZQPLO+HBsSc/bAPV05PbeGk=; b=RePC4Q5AmoW4VUTfu1ds6Pav/FB0kSLuRyGmcwD/6kVrEd1R9ubxNfXDNNOLH5AjE2 qJ9hRQGTTDhrh7Z5+zMQ0AwrW/88EGiVwLSoDuJf0wOhYqnfqAuMj4A2Mu4vuYW6Rqoc Z9kglDtr6yGjsFSHauuhM/NPQTHlw2Y3Qzr+ENBc+N0AIGUBLnyQOQRwioF6X+ckAQ5J Ikwe3V6TE7iGNcmYSAJu1mi7QPmBTbH9JePmwwHbc6aWlc7fQiRIvTMUGAIUq0OlaFZ6 gAjvKzG0ugtvndv34dJrRQ6BCANLzce0Wj6iAfWN6JQTgdYU1dv1SHb3UDOsPyh9I5Pt 7a4A== X-Received: by 10.204.167.81 with SMTP id p17mr901878bky.59.1389608883028; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 02:28:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.45.5 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 02:27:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52D3B71B.40802@cea.fr> References: <20140111152357.GB28133@notk.org> <20140111154146.GA976@lenat> <20140113090444.GA8904@notk.org> <52D3B71B.40802@cea.fr> From: Gabriel Scherer Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:27:22 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Bobot?= Cc: caml users Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Doing compiler patch review with a dedicated mailing-list During the last "why no ocaml on github" thread, I had a discussion with Jonathan Protzenko, which suggested precisely that we encourage pull requests on the existing Github mirror as a way to send patches -- to lower the participation cost for those that are too cool to use a bug tracker of the previous decade. Adrien's suggestion of using a mailing-list seems equally interesting (I'm in favor of everything that can increase community participation to OCaml), but indeed we should probably make a choice between the several options. The nice thing with mailing-list is that they have easy-to-browse archives, that in my experience work more reliably than search stuff in a github repository (in Batteries we tend to have things scattered across a web of issues, pull-requests, and commit comments that cross-reference each other, and I'm not always even sure where I should write). They're also based on a stable, well-established, *free software* stack that is there to stay (about Github, a Wise One remarked that "yesterday the same people were commanding that we host OCaml on Sourceforge; look where it is now!"). On the other hand, reacting to a perceived lack of sexiness of Mantis with a mailing-list... I'm not sure. I'm not personally afraid of having several places where patches are proposed (it is de facto already what happens, between the bugtracker, direct communication/review, people that post a link to a gitweb/github/gitlab view...), but I would be fine with blessing one "preferred" place and documenting it where it needs be. Re. wiki/documentation/whatever, we could take inspiration from the fine work done in the Cambridge are ( https://github.com/ocamllabs/compiler-hacking ). Let me take this as an occasion to remind that patches to insert enlightening comment in the admittedly-not-always-commented-enough compiler and distribution are welcome, and can be contributed right now. On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Fran=E7ois Bobot = wrote: > On 13/01/2014 10:04, Adrien Nader wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014, Simon Cruanes wrote: >>> >>> Le Sat, 11 Jan 2014, Adrien Nader a =E9crit : >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> (and sorry for the mail sent a few minutes ago :) ) >>>> >>>> I'd like to know what people think about having a mailing-list for >>>> reviews and tests of patches to the compiler and tools around it. >>>> >>>> The idea is to do something similar to the kernel mailing-list. I most= ly >>>> like mantis and it is possible to attach files but it becomes fairly >>>> unreadable after a while. The audience is also mostly limited to people >>>> who are subscribed to the bug report. I hope this reduces the work and >>>> burden of reviewers and especially commiters. >>>> >>>> The goal is not to replace patches on mantis and you shouldn't believe >>>> this has been blessed by the core development team (nor mentionned to >>>> them actually). Instead, I hope this helps do quicker (and smaller?) >>>> iteration of patches. >>>> > > I don't know how you generate and _manage_ patches with svn. Indeed the > linux kernel developers never used svn with their mailing-list review > workflow and developed git for simplifying this workflow. > > It seems counterproductive to have more than one place for discussing one > thing so I think the developers must make a choice: > - keeping patch review in mantis > - going to a mailing-list review workflow and moving from svn > - going to a merge-request workflow on github, specific gitlab instance, > bitbuckets, ... > > The last two points have the benefit to allow to easily comment inside the > patches. > > The third point (at least on github) subsume the second point since you c= an > answer to github issues or merge-requests by email. You can also ask to be > notified for every issues or merge-requests of a project. > > Best, > > -- > Fran=E7ois > > > -- > 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