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 7A1818015E for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 20:27:29 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=anil@recoil.org; spf=None smtp.mailfrom=anil@recoil.org; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@bark.recoil.org Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of anil@recoil.org) identity=pra; client-ip=5.153.225.51; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anil@recoil.org"; x-sender="anil@recoil.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of anil@recoil.org) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=5.153.225.51; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anil@recoil.org"; x-sender="anil@recoil.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@bark.recoil.org) identity=helo; client-ip=5.153.225.51; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anil@recoil.org"; x-sender="postmaster@bark.recoil.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AQGLo/xIpddyH08yEE9mcpTZWNBhigK39O0sv0rFi?= =?us-ascii?q?tYgeK/rxwZ3uMQTl6Ol3ixeRBMOAuq0C07KempujcFRI2YyGvnEGfc4EfD4+ou?= =?us-ascii?q?JSoTYdBtWYA1bwNv/gYn9yNs1DUFh44yPzahANS47xaFLIv3K98yMZFAnhOgpp?= =?us-ascii?q?POT1HZPZg9iq2+yo9ZDeZwdFiCChbb9uMR67sRjfus4KjIV4N60/0AHJonxGe+?= =?us-ascii?q?RXwWNnO1eelAvi68mz4ZBu7T1et+ou+MBcX6r6eb84TaFDAzQ9L281/szrugLd?= =?us-ascii?q?QgaJ+3ART38ZkhtMAwjC8RH6QpL8uTb0u+ZhxCWXO9D9QrcoVDms86tnVQbkhD?= =?us-ascii?q?saOzUk9G3bl8x9gKddrRm8pRJw3pTUbZmVOvR9YqzScs4US2RDUchPWSxPBZix?= =?us-ascii?q?YJETA+oEJ+tYr5Xxq0UIoBCjBQesHuTvyjpQi3Lq26060uAhGhzB0gM6At0OsG?= =?us-ascii?q?7brMvvO6cKT++60bTHzDXeZP5Rwzj97onIchQ6rPGWQ71/bc3RyUgrFw/fiVWQ?= =?us-ascii?q?s4PlMiqT2+8QvWab6O9gWviui24hswxxpSSgyd0pionNnI4VzUrE9SphzIY6JN?= =?us-ascii?q?24VE57YcO/H5dKqy6aMI52Tts/TG52oyk6y6cJuZihcCgN0pQnyBjSYOGEfYiQ?= =?us-ascii?q?+h/uVPydLSp4iX9rYr6zmQi+/Ei6xuD8S8W4yFVHojRfntTPrHwBygLf58udRv?= =?us-ascii?q?dj+kqs3yuE2RrJ5eFeO080kLLWK54/zb40kZoeqV/METXsmEX1lqOWbFsr9fSv?= =?us-ascii?q?6+TmZrXqvJicN5V7ig3mM6QunNKwAfggPwUORWSX5OSx2bP58UHnXrlHjuc6n6?= =?us-ascii?q?nEvJzCIMQUvK+5Awtb0oY57Ba/Ci+r384enXkGKFJIYwiHgJb1NFHJIfD4Ce2z?= =?us-ascii?q?g1O2kDdk3/zGJKHuAo3RLnjfl7fsZapy5FRZyAo31Nxf45NUCqodIP/oQU/wtN?= =?us-ascii?q?nYDgcjPACuwubnDs991oIEVm6VDK+ZKvCajVjdz+QuJ6GpbYMVsSj0M/Up6++m?= =?us-ascii?q?2XY/mFs1Z6Si2poTLneiEaI1DV+eZC/FhNYFWUIDsgo3UuXyhVGOQHYHbnCzW4?= =?us-ascii?q?om6zo8CYbgCp3MENP+yIed1Tu2S8UFLltNDUqBRC61eg=3D=3D?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CKCABPiz1Z/zPhmQVdGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBFQEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBgy1iA3gSjn+QWiGYFCyFeAIIgnlDFAEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBaiiCMwyCWgEFJxkDATUBAQ4LGC5XBhMUihwBC69Tglc6gwkHAohSA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEFAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEUAQiIQSsLgmqFF4MVgjGeRIcrgzeDOIUvbIEaGTy?= =?us-ascii?q?EboNLhnKJEocRhEkPJyGBCoEBCEgSAYJnghIcgWd1ihwBAQE?= X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CKCABPiz1Z/zPhmQVdGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBFQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQEBAQgBAQEBgy1iA3gSjn+QWiGYFCyFeAIIgnlDFAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBaiiCM?= =?us-ascii?q?wyCWgEFJxkDATUBAQ4LGC5XBhMUihwBC69Tglc6gwkHAohSAQEBAQEFAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEUAQiIQSsLgmqFF4MVgjGeRIcrgzeDOIUvbIEaGTyEboNLhnKJEocRh?= =?us-ascii?q?EkPJyGBCoEBCEgSAYJnghIcgWd1ihwBAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,330,1493676000"; d="scan'208,217";a="278249442" Received: from bark.recoil.org ([5.153.225.51]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Jun 2017 20:27:28 +0200 Received: from bark.recoil.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bark.recoil.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 6ebfaee0; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:27:27 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=recoil.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=Ad9MpVzE7megEO5rSVF4BkqmAvA=; b= PBGYDEcplMBp+tLEV1aERu6yemrrz7daNsSs9LLFlnweXzyg+Ie5rEjHr/74knj8 kdHTaw56t7blaSiOZuu6vpfWAbZROaNQwfpVnXZzcTPwRBzAV/mFc2vuJIiX9C0L 528Y8T3Q6JUYugD2LPfqtJtLmN2UPA6RWGZi4WejOw0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=recoil.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=jm6m6KSFgMsFOJBZ9YzlEwx o9w2tMf+i4XJLquOHZbkiDmRMTnRagEilAp/bpfDbnf+s8fukb72xXxOezXJ2akS GywPBnke4U79mjUCtV33oRAtCcZDEHHF1EPEBXtoY6MkDZZ/HDqsPJUXjk2RYq78 fYPviPfi8oertyUFIM4I= Received: from [192.168.1.31] (cpc91242-cmbg18-2-0-cust28.5-4.cable.virginm.net [82.8.128.29]) by bark.recoil.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 1c18ccd6 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO); Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:27:27 +0100 (BST) From: Anil Madhavapeddy Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7B57D175-0B22-4BA2-AE85-98E2C9111D7F" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:27:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: <810984CC-EA48-49A7-A00C-7127E824B9DA@recoil.org> Cc: caml users , opam-devel To: Anil Madhavapeddy References: <810984CC-EA48-49A7-A00C-7127E824B9DA@recoil.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [rfc] deprecating opam 1.2.0 --Apple-Mail=_7B57D175-0B22-4BA2-AE85-98E2C9111D7F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 2 Jun 2017, at 11:09, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote: >=20 > [ this is cross-posted from https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/rfc-deprecating-o= pam-1-2-0/332 ] >=20 > This is all for remaining users of OPAM 1.2.0, to see if it can be active= ly deprecated in favour of OPAM 1.2.2 and higher.=20 >=20 > ### Why deprecate opam 1.2.0 >=20 > OPAM 1.2.0 was released in October 2014, and saw rapid uptake from the co= mmunity. We did some rapid bugfixing to solve common problems, and OPAM 1.= 2.2 was released in April 2015. Since then, 1.2.2 has been a very solid re= lease and has been the stable version in use to date. >=20 > Unfortunately, part of the bugfixes in the 1.2.2 series resulted in an `o= pam` file format that is not fully backwards compatible with the 1.2.0 synt= ax, and the net effect is that users of 1.2.0 now see a broken package repo= sitory. Our CI tests for new packages regularly fail on 1.2.0, even if the= y succeed on 1.2.2 and higher. >=20 > As we prepare the plan for [1.2.2 -> 2.0 migration](https://github.com/oc= aml/opam/issues/2918), it is clear that we need a "one-in one-out" policy o= n releases in order to preserve the overall health of the package repositor= y -- maintaining three separate releases and formats of the repository is n= ot practical. Therefore the 1.2.0 release needs to be actively deprecated,= and we could use some help from the community to make this happen. >=20 > ### Who is still using opam 1.2.0? >=20 > I found that the Debian Jessie (stable) release includes 1.2.0, and this = is probably the last major distribution including it. The [Debian Stretch]= (https://wiki.debian.org/DebianStretch) is due to become the stable release= on the 17th June 2017, and so at that point there will hopefully be no dis= tributions actively sending opam 1.2.0 out. >=20 > Is there anyone else that is still packaging 1.2.0? Please comment here = if so, and we should move them away. >=20 > ### How do we deprecate it? >=20 > Due to the format changes happening in a minor version, it's a bit diffic= ult to give opam 1.2.0 users a smooth transition experience, to my knowledg= e (Louis Gesbert or Thomas Gazagnaire may correct me here). I would propos= e: >=20 > - putting a notice on opam.ocaml.org that 1.2.2 is the only supported sta= ble release. > - can we somehow put in a request to debian-stable to add a post-installa= tion message that the upstream package will no longer work since the reposi= tory?=20 Thank you all for the helpful feedback. Since there have been no more messa= ges or objections, I have started the process off here: https://github.com/ocaml/opam-repository/pull/9477 When I merge it, I will also update opam.ocaml.org = with a deprecation notice. If you do spot any distributions packaging opa= m 1.2.0, please do feel free to contact them to request an upgrade to a sup= ported release such as 1.2.2. regards, Anil= --Apple-Mail=_7B57D175-0B22-4BA2-AE85-98E2C9111D7F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii On 2 Jun 2017, = at 11:09, Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org> wrote:

[ this is cross-posted from https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/= rfc-deprecating-opam-1-2-0/332 ]

This is a= ll for remaining users of OPAM 1.2.0, to see if it can be actively deprecat= ed in favour of OPAM 1.2.2 and higher.

### Wh= y deprecate opam 1.2.0

OPAM 1.2.0 was released= in October 2014, and saw rapid uptake from the community.  We did som= e rapid bugfixing to solve common problems, and OPAM 1.2.2 was released in = April 2015.  Since then, 1.2.2 has been a very solid release and has b= een the stable version in use to date.

Unfortu= nately, part of the bugfixes in the 1.2.2 series resulted in an `opam` file= format that is not fully backwards compatible with the 1.2.0 syntax, and t= he net effect is that users of 1.2.0 now see a broken package repository. &= nbsp;Our CI tests for new packages regularly fail on 1.2.0, even if they su= cceed on 1.2.2 and higher.

As we prepare the p= lan for [1.2.2 -> 2.0 migration](https://github.com/ocaml/opam/issues/2918), i= t is clear that we need a "one-in one-out" policy on releases in order to p= reserve the overall health of the package repository -- maintaining three s= eparate releases and formats of the repository is not practical.  Ther= efore the 1.2.0 release needs to be actively deprecated, and we could use s= ome help from the community to make this happen.

### Who is still using opam 1.2.0?

I found = that the Debian Jessie (stable) release includes 1.2.0, and this is probabl= y the last major distribution including it.  The [Debian Stretch](https://wiki.debia= n.org/DebianStretch) is due to become the stable release on the 17th Ju= ne 2017, and so at that point there will hopefully be no distributions acti= vely sending opam 1.2.0 out.

Is there anyone e= lse that is still packaging 1.2.0?  Please comment here if so, and we = should move them away.

### How do we deprecate= it?

Due to the format changes happening in a = minor version, it's a bit difficult to give opam 1.2.0 users a smooth trans= ition experience, to my knowledge (Louis Gesbert or Thomas Gazagnaire may c= orrect me here).  I would propose:

- putt= ing a notice on opam.ocaml.org= that 1.2.2 is the only supported stable release.
- can w= e somehow put in a request to debian-stable to add a post-installation mess= age that the upstream package will no longer work since the repository?

T= hank you all for the helpful feedback. Since there have been no more messag= es or objections, I have started the process off here:

https://github.com/ocaml/opam-reposito= ry/pull/9477

= When I merge it, I will also update opam.ocaml.org with a deprecation notice.  If you do sp= ot any distributions packaging opam 1.2.0, please do feel free to contact t= hem to request an upgrade to a supported release such as 1.2.2.

regards,
Anil
= --Apple-Mail=_7B57D175-0B22-4BA2-AE85-98E2C9111D7F--