[ocaml-platform] Improving the opam-repository issue tracker

Fri Sep 30 11:56:38 BST 2016

> The top 4 out of 6 contributors to opam-repository work at Docker
according to the GitHub states [1], and we spend a significant amount of
time maintaining the general coherence of the repository and responding to
PRs, and working on CI infrastructure for OPAM (depext, ocaml-ci-scripts,
and soon some more pieces).  In the top 20, I see around 10 people
associated with OCaml Labs working on opam-repository.

As I said, there are already a lot of people contributing, but I think it's
a very different job from fixing packages on a daily basis. The task of
such an engineer would not be to work on the infrastructure, or
comment/accept/reject pull-requests, but to fix all broken packages, one
after the other, probably, of course, with some priorities (as Gabriel is
doing on his spare time using opam-builder).

> Did you have a concrete suggestion in your below mail for other
contributors?  In general we should make it easier for power users to
contribute to the OPAM repository, as we will have an increased burden of
support when code signing lands (as it requires a quorum among committers).

I think my suggestion was pretty concrete: if there are companies relying
on the opam-repository for their developments, they could assign one of
their engineers to such a task, and make it official, so that it will
reassure users on the future of the repository, and enable us to coordinate
with these engineers. I had the feeling that such a solution is easier for
many companies, compared to contracting OCamlPro to do such a task (i.e.
using their internal resources is easier than giving money to another
company).

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:46 AM Anil Madhavapeddy <anil at recoil.org> wrote:

> The top 4 out of 6 contributors to opam-repository work at Docker
> according to the GitHub states [1], and we spend a significant amount of
> time maintaining the general coherence of the repository and responding to
> PRs, and working on CI infrastructure for OPAM (depext, ocaml-ci-scripts,
> and soon some more pieces).  In the top 20, I see around 10 people
> associated with OCaml Labs working on opam-repository.
>
> Did you have a concrete suggestion in your below mail for other
> contributors?  In general we should make it easier for power users to
> contribute to the OPAM repository, as we will have an increased burden of
> support when code signing lands (as it requires a quorum among committers).
>
> [1] https://github.com/ocaml/opam-repository/graphs/contributors
>
> Anil
>
> > On 30 Sep 2016, at 10:10, Fabrice Le Fessant <
> Fabrice.Le_fessant at inria.fr> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe it would make sense for some heavy industrial users of OCaml to
> devote one engineer part-time (one or two days a week, for example) to the
> maintenance of the opam-repository ? There are already people from
> different organizations contributing, but mostly on their spare time, so
> they cannot really spend a lot of time understanding, for every broken
> package, how to fix the problem. Having engineers, officially dedicated to
> that task by their organizations, would help a lot. Do you think it would
> be possible ? I think that the Haskell community as such an engineer
> working full-time at maintaining the stability of one of their repositories
> (Hackage ? Stackage ?).
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 4:59 PM Anil Madhavapeddy <anil at recoil.org>
> wrote:
> > There have been a couple of informal get-togethers in Cambridge, and
> we're happy to host more of course.
> >
> > However, in this instance what the opam-repository needs is fairly
> simple curation and labelling. Thomas has been working on a GitHub PR
> library that should be open sourced soon that will help us tag issues more
> automatically, so we can do a sweep through opam-repository when this is
> done.
> >
> > In general, the Debian philosophy elsewhere in the thread is correct --
> we do not have the resources to be a user support channel, but should keep
> issues open that are real breakage that can be actioned in the repository.
> Thoughts on where feature requests should go are welcome...
> >
> > regards,
> > Anil
> >
> > > On 27 Sep 2016, at 15:55, Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps what is needed is a somewhat tedious day with maintainers in
> the same (virtual) place, so that (brief) discussions can take place
> immediately, to control the backlog?
> > >
> > > Maybe for another time, but have opam-repository maintainers and
> contributors considered having an actual get-together event? Given the
> current distribution, Cambridge or London could be good starting points.
> (I'm personally stuck on the wrong side of the Atlantic before January, but
> in general terms I would consider attending such an event. There would also
> be interesting discussions to be had regarding opam 2.0 migration and
> Conex.)
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Thomas Gazagnaire <
> thomas at gazagnaire.org> wrote:
> > > >> Nowadays I consider it a lost cause when I file an issue on the
> opam-
> > > >> repository.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think this is an issue.
> > > >>
> > > >> I perfectly understand that from the point of view of repo
> maintainers the
> > > >> amount of issues (136 now) doesn't entice them to go through the
> backlog
> > > >> to try to fix or close them. However I believe that if we try to
> limit the
> > > >> backlog or tag them more appropriately there may be a better chance
> that
> > > >> issues do not simply get ignored.
> > > >>
> > > >> Going through the least recently updated issues:
> > > >>
> > > >> https://github.com/ocaml/opam-
> > > >> repository/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+sort%3Aupdated-asc
> > > >>
> > > >> here are a few things that come to mind:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. Kill that `request for package` tag. Being a developer-oriented
> package
> > > >> system I don't think the opam repository is the place to ask for
> > > >> packaging, people should ask upstream (I don't say this didn't make
> sense
> > > >> when opam was a baby).
> > > >> 2. Kill too open ended questions with the `question` tag.
> > > >> 3. Go through the `bug` tag. It seems a lot of old things can be
> closed.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed - I was briefly involved with Git-for-Windows. I disliked
> hugely the way the principal maintainer runs that project, but one thing
> which was very impressive was his rapid triage of issues. For standard FAQ
> questions, "we" (i.e. a maintainer) should comment with the appropriate FAQ
> link (number 1 would be advice either to contact upstream or a pointer to
> the packaging instructions; number 2 would either link to the manual or a
> general FAQ to open an issue on the appropriate docs repository; etc.) and
> immediately *close* the issue. It doesn't prevent the poster from
> commenting a little further, but it removes a "pointless" issue from the
> list as quickly as possible. Also, if an issue was woefully lacking in
> required information, the issue was closed, rather than requesting further
> information and leaving it open. The OP can always re-open the issue having
> supplied further details (or start a fresh one).
> > > >
> > > > If your issue survives that process, his next stage was tag it and
> determine who was going to fix it - if it a maintainer volunteers, it's
> assigned; otherwise if you don't agree to fix it, it's closed at once
> (happens with feature requests more than bugs, obviously).
> > > >
> > > > Finally, about once a month, he'd go through old issues and ping
> them for status - and close anything which seemed not to be making progress.
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that for opam-repository a ruthless model would work
> well! Or, as we can see, you can't see the wood for them trees...
> > > >
> > > >> 4. There seem to be a lot of old install glitches that I'm sure are
> no
> > > >> longer relevant.
> > > >> 5. There are a few open issues where people say that the problem is
> > > >> solved, they should be closed...
> > > >>
> > > >> I think we should walk up from the oldest issues and whenever
> things are
> > > >> are unclear tag them with `scheduled for closure` and comment that
> without
> > > >> any further feedback in 7 days, the issue will be closed. Also in
> general
> > > >> it would be nice to introduce tags to distinguish between repo
> > > >> organisation issues like [1] (may be long lived) and end-user repo
> install
> > > >> failures like [2] (should be short lived).
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps what is needed is a somewhat tedious day with maintainers in
> the same (virtual) place, so that (brief) discussions can take place
> immediately, to control the backlog?
> > >
> > > I agree, I rarely look at the issue tracker and its current state
> makes me quite sad (these two are maybe related). Any help to triage these
> issues would be greatly appreciated. I will make a quick first scan to
> close the obvious ones.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Platform mailing list
> > > Platform at lists.ocaml.org
> > > http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/platform
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Platform mailing list
> > > Platform at lists.ocaml.org
> > > http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/platform
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Platform mailing list
> > Platform at lists.ocaml.org
> > http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/platform
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ocaml.org/pipermail/platform/attachments/20160930/6376cd5b/attachment.html>