[ocaml-infra] new Github projects under the "ocaml" organization

[Ashish Agarwal]

> It would be good to have a short page about infrastructure on ocaml.org
as well -- would you (or anyone else on the thread) have suggestions for
where to put this on the website?

I think it would fit best under Documentation.


On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Anil Madhavapeddy <anil at recoil.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Thank you for all of your comments! To do a consolidated reply:
>
> > On 7 December 2016 at 16:22, Amir Chaudhry <amc79 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > The governance doc was specifically written for the ocaml.org domain.
> > Of course, it can be modified and extended to cover other things but the
> management and policy around code repos was not part of the original scope.
>
> Good point.  It would be useful to clarify this scope though, since the
> governance doc makes several references to "code repositories" that are all
> hosted
> in the GitHub ocaml/ org.  So it seems quite relevant to organise those
> code repositories under the same framework as the rest of the
> infrastructure that they eventually drive.
>
> > I mention this in case anyone think it’ll be a trivial thing to add :)
>
> What particular difficulties did you have in mind with extending it to
> cover the management of code?
>
> > On 8 Dec 2016, at 09:28, Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain at le-gall.net> wrote:
> >
> > Just to make it clear to everyone:
> > The forge will be deprecated but I haven't made an official statement
> about it (pending). The official recommendation will be to migrate projects
> to Github, but I'll keep a STATIC website of the forge -- for the project
> that have no plan to migrate.
> <...>
> > Mass migration under an organisation is still an option for the Forge
> migration but:
> > - it will generate quite a lot of work
> > - lot of long discussions (some project may not want to be mass migrated
> to github, but would prefer GitLab or other)
> > - probably only 20 migrated repositories will be active afterward
>
> Keeping a static copy of the existing Forge would be very useful.
> Regarding mass migration, I was thinking of simply git cloning the existing
> repositories into a mirror namespace on GitHub, and doing nothing further.
> Individual maintainers from the Forge could then be granted write access
> and/or the repositories transferred if they choose, but at a minimum simply
> keeping a copy of code, history and tags would provide OPAM with a useful
> mirror alternative to the Forge.
>
> If maintainers do want GitLab, they will have to host it themselves...
>
> On 8 Dec 2016, at 12:55, Gemma Gordon <gg417 at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > ​I wanted to help but wasn't sure how to begin with.
>
> Thanks for jumping in here, Gemma!  To be clear, we ("infrastructure")
> welcome anyone who wishes to help maintain the growing set of repositories,
> so please do feel free to ask clarification questions about anything that
> is undocumented or otherwise confusing.
>
> > Based on comments here I've added a list of all of the repositories
> currently within the ocaml/ organisation to an /infrastructure/ wiki page:
> https://github.com/ocaml/infrastructure/wiki/OCaml-Project-Repositories
> so we can easily see what is there and where we might organise things.
>
> I've edited this to add some more information.  It would be good to have a
> short page about infrastructure on ocaml.org as well -- would you (or
> anyone else on the thread) have suggestions for where to put this on the
> website?  I'm keen to avoid wiki proliferation and have one place on
> ocaml.org where people can be directed to this kind of information.
>
> >
> > The infrastructure wiki might be a good place to provide more of an
> overview of the OCaml ecosystem, and not just machine resources. Some
> ideas/questions:
> >
> > * We can pin 6 of the main repositories to the OCaml organisation page
> as per the Mirage organisation page: https://github.com/mirage
>
> Sounds good; how about:
>
> ocaml
> ocaml-manual
> ocamlbuild
> opam
> opam-repository
> ocaml.org
>
> This covers the core compiler, OPAM and the website.
>
> >
> > * The wiki: https://github.com/ocaml/infrastructure/wiki is a little
> out of date - perhaps we could refresh/reorganise it?
>
> My fault I'm afraid. I'll take a pass a bit later on...
>
> > * Rather than migrating, we can link to other OCaml libraries that are
> relevant to the core ocaml.org ecosystem such as
> https://github.com/ocaml-doc, https://github.com/the-lambda-church/merlin
> that are incorporated within their own organisations
> > * Shall we link to other third party libraries that are
> important/relevant to the core compiler? e.g. Spacetime, AFL
>
> This is a very good point.  One of my concerns is that the various new
> features in OCaml are quite spread out now. Spacetime's implementation is
> on [either Leo or Jane Street] person repos, the ocaml-doc is its own
> organisation, and so on.
>
> Would there be any objection to also starting discussions with various
> maintainers about migrating in "headline" projects such as Spacetime UIs
> into the ocaml/ org?  I'd suggest only doing this once the feature is in a
> released compiler distribution, since then the maintenance burden is
> established for some time.
>
> Thanks again for all the rapid and helpful responses, Amir, Sylvain and
> Gemma.
>
> regards,
> Anil
> _______________________________________________
> Infrastructure mailing list
> Infrastructure at lists.ocaml.org
> http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/infrastructure
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ocaml.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20161208/41b9cc9f/attachment-0001.html>