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 7B76B7EE99 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 23:36:28 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of markus.mottl@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.212.180; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="markus.mottl@gmail.com"; x-sender="markus.mottl@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of markus.mottl@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.180 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.212.180; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="markus.mottl@gmail.com"; x-sender="markus.mottl@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-wi0-f180.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.212.180; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="markus.mottl@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-wi0-f180.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AowDAJRot1LRVdS0lGdsb2JhbABYg0NJDLlAgQ0IFg4BAQEBBwsLCRIqgiUBAQEEQAEUBw8BDQEDDAYFCw0uIQEBEQEFARwGE4dvAQMRpSqMXIMJjlwKGScNZIVuEQEFDI0GghMHhDYEiUOMaIFsjFqDTRgphHce X-IPAS-Result: AowDAJRot1LRVdS0lGdsb2JhbABYg0NJDLlAgQ0IFg4BAQEBBwsLCRIqgiUBAQEEQAEUBw8BDQEDDAYFCw0uIQEBEQEFARwGE4dvAQMRpSqMXIMJjlwKGScNZIVuEQEFDI0GghMHhDYEiUOMaIFsjFqDTRgphHce X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,533,1384297200"; d="scan'208";a="50108373" Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com ([209.85.212.180]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 22 Dec 2013 23:36:28 +0100 Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hm19so5635304wib.7 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 14:36:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2fdrunFEVxehAhJbNu76sVG8y0MwXo4x9YcdPT1upCM=; b=1DuP+CoAMr3+4SAJxNPouQfdvxjlHgOqxeu8oZK6IQwYq6y4sczGcIoE0VLRT6pjqr pBDIR+SAVZG4eOaquQ8RhcGY7G18uYcbEgy5ATsLNF9Yr5VFY44Hy38XMI/xRx5QifX/ tF193kcuZpeA9TL9dbMRUBD0fk0SR59akBRLNEMIOuszcQ0UnCgcoylpmqmbDa2fYVTi iJno7HYbQQiEwR4zd4eYk8jUhXv/scqGjr6RRG1udVTiIR/s8/rkm+qPSqE3yhzFXfRi hryEefCB8BC32cxepwhJZHEgTKfD4mJWz1RY5qeI2bJw7oGP7wdRLppkYHNmX+sk3a3K sHGg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.9.100 with SMTP id y4mr16106765wja.22.1387751787593; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 14:36:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.195.13.41 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 14:36:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20131222140332.GA8080@annexia.org> <20131222140728.GB8080@annexia.org> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 17:36:27 -0500 Message-ID: From: Markus Mottl To: Gabriel Scherer Cc: "Richard W.M. Jones" , Yotam Barnoy , Ocaml Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Moving ocaml to github (as well) On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Gabriel Scherer wrote: > 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. I think people generally underestimate by how much lower contribution hurdles or "better user experience" can improve adoption rates. The OPAM vs Godi story should act as a reminder for that. It's not that Godi couldn't do what OPAM does, in fact, I think it could do pretty much all of what users and developers needed. It's just that it required developers and users to jump through a few more hoops to achieve the intended results, enough to prevent it from gaining such quick and wide adoption. Some of the issues may be more perceived than real. E.g. a contributor might fear that their patch is more likely to be ignored in a bug tracker, maybe because it clashes with newer changes due to the lack of revision control. But at the end of the day the only thing that matters is whether a developer is willing to make a contribution. Your milage on larger, more complex projects may vary, but when I translated/switched my projects from CVS to Mercurial on Bitbucket (Github surely would be similar), the effort was so laughably small, literally a few minutes per project, I'd find it hard to believe that workarounds or improved documentation for better interaction through SVN could possibly be worth it. Regards, Markus -- Markus Mottl http://www.ocaml.info markus.mottl@gmail.com