Carter Schonwald | 6 Dec 03:31 2012
Picon

proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

hey all, 

It seems to me (and i've certainly heard other people echo this sentiment) that: ghc dev chatting gets buried in the huge volume of commit + build report emails, and that creates (perhaps) another barrier to involvement in ghc dev at the hobbyist (rather than part time/full time ) scale?

So my question for the community (and of course current ghc devs )

1) do others agree that theres value in separating the two? 

2) would this just be another use  of the ghc-users list or would it be worth having a ghc-dev list?

3) most importantly, would the folks actively involved in ghc dev be willing/able to  do so?

That said, it does seem like the majority of the interesting ghc-dev chatter is on Trac issues, which is a good thing, though theres lots of interesting wee nuggets buried on the ghc-cvs list intermittently

I hope this question makes sense for y'all!
-Carter
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Erik de Castro Lopo | 6 Dec 03:52 2012

Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

Carter Schonwald wrote:

> hey all,
> It seems to me (and i've certainly heard other people echo this sentiment)
> that: ghc dev chatting gets buried in the huge volume of commit + build
> report emails, and that creates (perhaps) another barrier to involvement in
> ghc dev at the hobbyist (rather than part time/full time ) scale?
> 
> So my question for the community (and of course current ghc devs )
> 
> 1) do others agree that theres value in separating the two?
> 
> 2) would this just be another use  of the ghc-users list or would it be
> worth having a ghc-dev list?
> 
> 3) most importantly, would the folks actively involved in ghc dev be
> willing/able to  do so?

+1

This is a good idea, one that I have solved at my end using Procmail.

So even though I have solved it for me, I still approve of this suggestion
since it seems silly to push this to the receiver's end when it could so
easily be solved by having separate lists.

Erik
--

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
Stephen Paul Weber | 6 Dec 14:55 2012
Picon

Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

Somebody claiming to be Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>This is a good idea, one that I have solved at my end using Procmail.

I was planning to do this soon (as I get deeper into GHC hacking because of 
my port, but don't want the high-email-volume of the comitt and build 
emails).  Procmail is awesome.

--

-- 
Stephen Paul Weber,  <at> singpolyma
See <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted
edition right joseph
Austin Seipp | 6 Dec 04:21 2012
Picon

Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

I think we already mostly have this. The separation (remembering
something I read off Trac I think,) was something like:

 * cvs-ghc mailing list: Prospective patches, automatically generated
build/commit emails, etc.
 * glasgow-haskell-users mailing list: Developers and users of GHC
discussing issues of design, process, bugs or fielding questions et
cetera

Doing some counting: looking at my email (which is gmail,) I have the
last 100 most recent email *threads* open from cvs-ghc. The 100th
dates to Nov 30th. I count about ~7 instances of
non-build-or-commit-generated discussions in this timeframe (that is,
~7 email threads where the content wasn't just a build email, but a
follow up, or it was actually it's own thread.) Almost all of these
instances are related to patches or patches that were committed and
some talk happened about them. One (maybe two) were about build/test
failures.

In contrast, for glasgow-haskell-users, for the past 100 threads: the
100th thread dates to July 12th. However, the structure of all these
conversations is far, far more rich: just about every single thread
contains far more discussion, almost 100% of them containing at least
2-3 emails. Some go as far as 20-70 emails deep, and many have several
handfuls of responses. This is just for the past few months but I've
been subscribed to both for years, so I'd say that sounds about right.

From this, I would infer that most of the interesting discussion does,
in fact, happen on glasgow-haskell-users. There are perhaps fewer
topics at a less regular pace, but it's really here. In contrast,
cvs-ghc is mostly autogenerated stuff regular developers etc care
about, with the sprinkling of discussion, almost all of it for patches
or failures it seems.

The thing is, I would think that most people who are trying to get
into routinely hacking on GHC would want to be subscribed to both
anyway. Personally I think commits are the most valuable asset I can
see at a glance. But Johan has discussed having Jenkins performance
regressions sent out in light of the recent performance Tsar work, and
(some of) the bots do report success nightly here. So for people who
aren't submitting a benign patch or doing one-off-work, you are
probably at least going to want that stuff on your radar. But even
just looking at the work others are doing can give you ideas, or give
you familiarity with something (it's even exciting to read patches
sometimes!)

Overall I think the current separation is actually pretty good. Most
of the real meaty questions are asked here, and the developers
routinely sit on cvs-ghc to talk about patches or build failures and
the like. However, I do agree that sometimes you can miss out on
interesting discussion that happens there. Perhaps the rules could be
changed so that:

* cvs-ghc is only for automatically-generated content like build
emails, regressions, and commits.
* glasgow-haskell-users is for everything else, including patch review
(which also happens on trac) or discussing failures/regressions.

I don't know how attached I am to the current scheme, but perhaps this
sounds better to some, and I thought I could offer .02c having been
listening here for a while. :)

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Carter Schonwald
<carter.schonwald <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> hey all,
> It seems to me (and i've certainly heard other people echo this sentiment)
> that: ghc dev chatting gets buried in the huge volume of commit + build
> report emails, and that creates (perhaps) another barrier to involvement in
> ghc dev at the hobbyist (rather than part time/full time ) scale?
>
> So my question for the community (and of course current ghc devs )
>
> 1) do others agree that theres value in separating the two?
>
> 2) would this just be another use  of the ghc-users list or would it be
> worth having a ghc-dev list?
>
> 3) most importantly, would the folks actively involved in ghc dev be
> willing/able to  do so?
>
> That said, it does seem like the majority of the interesting ghc-dev chatter
> is on Trac issues, which is a good thing, though theres lots of interesting
> wee nuggets buried on the ghc-cvs list intermittently
>
> I hope this question makes sense for y'all!
> -Carter
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users <at> haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>

--

-- 
Regards,
Austin
Simon Peyton-Jones | 6 Dec 13:29 2012
Picon

RE: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

My own understanding is this:

A GHC *user* is someone who uses GHC, but doesn't care how it is implemented.
A GHC *developer* is someone who wants to work on GHC itself in some way.

The current mailing lists:

* glasgow-haskell-users: for anything that a GHC *user* cares about
* glasgow-haskell-bugs: same, but with a focus on bug reporting
* cvs-ghc: for GHC *developers*

I don't think we want to confuse users with developers.  If we flood users with dev-related conversations
they'll get fed up.

I don't see a very useful distinction between glasgow-haskell-users and glasgow-haskell-bugs.  The
distinction was very important before we had a bug tracker, but it doesn't seem useful now.

I can see a perhaps-useful distinction between two *developer* lists
 (A) human email about implementation aspects of GHC
 (B) machine-generated email from buildbots etc

I rather think that (A) could usefully include Trac ticket creation and Git commit messages, since both are
really human-generated.  So that would leave only buildbot logs on (B).

So I would be content to
  * Abolish glasgow-haskell-bugs in favour of glasgow-haskell-users
  * Split out cvs-ghc into two in some way; details to be agreed.

But for me the issue is not a pressing one.  

Simon 

| -----Original Message-----
| From: glasgow-haskell-users-bounces <at> haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-
| users-bounces <at> haskell.org] On Behalf Of Austin Seipp
| Sent: 06 December 2012 03:21
| To: Carter Schonwald
| Cc: GHC Users List
| Subject: Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev
| chatter
| 
| I think we already mostly have this. The separation (remembering
| something I read off Trac I think,) was something like:
| 
|  * cvs-ghc mailing list: Prospective patches, automatically generated
| build/commit emails, etc.
|  * glasgow-haskell-users mailing list: Developers and users of GHC
| discussing issues of design, process, bugs or fielding questions et
| cetera
| 
| Doing some counting: looking at my email (which is gmail,) I have the
| last 100 most recent email *threads* open from cvs-ghc. The 100th dates
| to Nov 30th. I count about ~7 instances of non-build-or-commit-generated
| discussions in this timeframe (that is,
| ~7 email threads where the content wasn't just a build email, but a
| follow up, or it was actually it's own thread.) Almost all of these
| instances are related to patches or patches that were committed and some
| talk happened about them. One (maybe two) were about build/test
| failures.
| 
| In contrast, for glasgow-haskell-users, for the past 100 threads: the
| 100th thread dates to July 12th. However, the structure of all these
| conversations is far, far more rich: just about every single thread
| contains far more discussion, almost 100% of them containing at least
| 2-3 emails. Some go as far as 20-70 emails deep, and many have several
| handfuls of responses. This is just for the past few months but I've
| been subscribed to both for years, so I'd say that sounds about right.
| 
| From this, I would infer that most of the interesting discussion does,
| in fact, happen on glasgow-haskell-users. There are perhaps fewer topics
| at a less regular pace, but it's really here. In contrast, cvs-ghc is
| mostly autogenerated stuff regular developers etc care about, with the
| sprinkling of discussion, almost all of it for patches or failures it
| seems.
| 
| The thing is, I would think that most people who are trying to get into
| routinely hacking on GHC would want to be subscribed to both anyway.
| Personally I think commits are the most valuable asset I can see at a
| glance. But Johan has discussed having Jenkins performance regressions
| sent out in light of the recent performance Tsar work, and (some of) the
| bots do report success nightly here. So for people who aren't submitting
| a benign patch or doing one-off-work, you are probably at least going to
| want that stuff on your radar. But even just looking at the work others
| are doing can give you ideas, or give you familiarity with something
| (it's even exciting to read patches
| sometimes!)
| 
| Overall I think the current separation is actually pretty good. Most of
| the real meaty questions are asked here, and the developers routinely
| sit on cvs-ghc to talk about patches or build failures and the like.
| However, I do agree that sometimes you can miss out on interesting
| discussion that happens there. Perhaps the rules could be changed so
| that:
| 
| * cvs-ghc is only for automatically-generated content like build emails,
| regressions, and commits.
| * glasgow-haskell-users is for everything else, including patch review
| (which also happens on trac) or discussing failures/regressions.
| 
| I don't know how attached I am to the current scheme, but perhaps this
| sounds better to some, and I thought I could offer .02c having been
| listening here for a while. :)
| 
| On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Carter Schonwald
| <carter.schonwald <at> gmail.com> wrote:
| > hey all,
| > It seems to me (and i've certainly heard other people echo this
| > sentiment)
| > that: ghc dev chatting gets buried in the huge volume of commit +
| > build report emails, and that creates (perhaps) another barrier to
| > involvement in ghc dev at the hobbyist (rather than part time/full
| time ) scale?
| >
| > So my question for the community (and of course current ghc devs )
| >
| > 1) do others agree that theres value in separating the two?
| >
| > 2) would this just be another use  of the ghc-users list or would it
| > be worth having a ghc-dev list?
| >
| > 3) most importantly, would the folks actively involved in ghc dev be
| > willing/able to  do so?
| >
| > That said, it does seem like the majority of the interesting ghc-dev
| > chatter is on Trac issues, which is a good thing, though theres lots
| > of interesting wee nuggets buried on the ghc-cvs list intermittently
| >
| > I hope this question makes sense for y'all!
| > -Carter
| >
| > _______________________________________________
| > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
| > Glasgow-haskell-users <at> haskell.org
| > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
| >
| 
| 
| 
| --
| Regards,
| Austin
| 
| _______________________________________________
| Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
| Glasgow-haskell-users <at> haskell.org
| http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Sean Leather | 6 Dec 14:23 2012
Picon

Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:

My own understanding is this:

A GHC *user* is someone who uses GHC, but doesn't care how it is implemented.
A GHC *developer* is someone who wants to work on GHC itself in some way.

The current mailing lists:

* glasgow-haskell-users: for anything that a GHC *user* cares about
* glasgow-haskell-bugs: same, but with a focus on bug reporting
* cvs-ghc: for GHC *developers*

I don't think we want to confuse users with developers.  If we flood users with dev-related conversations they'll get fed up.

I don't see a very useful distinction between glasgow-haskell-users and glasgow-haskell-bugs.  The distinction was very important before we had a bug tracker, but it doesn't seem useful now.

I can see a perhaps-useful distinction between two *developer* lists
 (A) human email about implementation aspects of GHC
 (B) machine-generated email from buildbots etc

I rather think that (A) could usefully include Trac ticket creation and Git commit messages, since both are really human-generated.

I think the last two things (tickets and commit messages) should be separate from a mailing that is intended for (email-only) discussion. The content may be human-generated, but:

(1) The number of messages is overwhelming. Alternatively stated, if you consider each ticket or commit message a different thread (which many email clients do), the number of different threads is large.
(2) The commit messages do not all lead to conversations, and most of the discussion on tickets takes place on Trac with every message duplicated to the list.

Consequently, any email-only discussion threads on the mailing list can easily get lost among all the other threads.
 
So that would leave only buildbot logs on (B).


So I would be content to
  * Abolish glasgow-haskell-bugs in favour of glasgow-haskell-users
  * Split out cvs-ghc into two in some way; details to be agreed.

But for me the issue is not a pressing one.

I identify the following different needs:

(1) User email discussion
(2) Developer email discussion
(3) Buildbot reports
(4) Trac reports
(5) Commit messages

Users will be interested in (1). Developers or followers of GHC development are probably interested in (1) and (2) but not necessarily (3 - 5). Maintainers or "serious" developers are probably interested in some combination of the above, including (1) and (2). People who track bugs (in general or for fun) would be interested in (4). Since Trac tickets have a CC option, many people probably don't need to subscribe to this list. Developers who police development would be interested in (3 - 5).

By having a separate mailing list for each of (1) and (2), the email-only discussion does not get overwhelmed by the traffic of (3 - 5). And a separate mailing for each of (3 - 5) would allow the interested parties to subscribe to only what they want. Also, if you want to respond to an email on (3 - 5), then you are probably already subscribed to (2), so you can CC (2) in your response, thus bringing more developers into the conversation.

(Personally, I've been using filters in Gmail to mark-read stuff that I'm not interested in, but I would be even happier to have the mailing lists further segmented.)

Regards,
Sean
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Roman Cheplyaka | 6 Dec 17:25 2012

Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

* Sean Leather <leather <at> cs.uu.nl> [2012-12-06 14:23:27+0100]
> I think the last two things (tickets and commit messages) should be
> separate from a mailing that is intended for (email-only) discussion. The
> content may be human-generated, but:
> 
> (1) The number of messages is overwhelming. Alternatively stated, if you
> consider each ticket or commit message a different thread (which many email
> clients do), the number of different threads is large.
> (2) The commit messages do not all lead to conversations, and most of the
> discussion on tickets takes place on Trac with every message duplicated to
> the list.

+1. I'd like to follow GHC development discussions, but getting all the
commits is too much.

Roman
Ian Lynagh | 6 Dec 17:55 2012

Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 06:25:49PM +0200, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
> 
> +1. I'd like to follow GHC development discussions, but getting all the
> commits is too much.

I'm surprised by this, FWIW. I think skimming the commits is a good way
to get an idea of what's going on, while discussions between developers
tend to be focussed on particular obscure points (e.g. discussing
correctness of a murky corner in the intersection between 2 new type
system extensions, or discussing the way PIC is handled on OSX/PowerPC)
which I wouldn't have thought were of much interest to any party not
involved in the discussion and familiar with the details.

Anyway, I'm not really too fussed about what mailing lists we have. I'll
just subscribe to them all anyway  :-)

Thanks
Ian
José Pedro Magalhães | 6 Dec 18:01 2012
Picon

Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

I have the same opinion as Ian; I'm happy with the current setup, but if things
change I'll just subscribe to everything anyway.


Cheers,
Pedro

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Ian Lynagh <ian <at> well-typed.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 06:25:49PM +0200, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
>
> +1. I'd like to follow GHC development discussions, but getting all the
> commits is too much.

I'm surprised by this, FWIW. I think skimming the commits is a good way
to get an idea of what's going on, while discussions between developers
tend to be focussed on particular obscure points (e.g. discussing
correctness of a murky corner in the intersection between 2 new type
system extensions, or discussing the way PIC is handled on OSX/PowerPC)
which I wouldn't have thought were of much interest to any party not
involved in the discussion and familiar with the details.

Anyway, I'm not really too fussed about what mailing lists we have. I'll
just subscribe to them all anyway  :-)


Thanks
Ian


_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Sean Leather | 6 Dec 18:48 2012
Picon

Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote:

On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 06:25:49PM +0200, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
>
> +1. I'd like to follow GHC development discussions, but getting all the
> commits is too much.

I'm surprised by this, FWIW. I think skimming the commits is a good way
to get an idea of what's going on,

Indeed, it can be. But I can't keep up with the huge number of commits everyday, and I'm not interested in the large majority of them.

while discussions between developers
tend to be focussed on particular obscure points (e.g. discussing
correctness of a murky corner in the intersection between 2 new type
system extensions, or discussing the way PIC is handled on OSX/PowerPC)
which I wouldn't have thought were of much interest to any party not
involved in the discussion and familiar with the details.

I find these things (both examples, actually) more interesting. I'm more likely to follow such threads than I am to skim the commits.

Anyway, I'm not really too fussed about what mailing lists we have. I'll
just subscribe to them all anyway  :-)

I'm not too fussed about it, either, but I wouldn't mind a restructuring. I might even subscribe to them all as well, but then it will be easier to follow the commits at a different pace from the rest (without having to create a new filter, which I've been so far too lazy to do).

Regards,
Sean
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Andrew Farmer | 6 Dec 19:02 2012

Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

I'd also like to follow discussions, but unsubscribed from cvs-ghc due to the volume.


Maybe the reply-to field on cvs-ghc emails could be set to glasgow-haskell-bugs? (or whatever the agreed upon dev list is called)

Then if someone replies to a bot/commit message on cvs-ghc, it automatically goes to the place where active discussion happens, and those of us that don't want so many emails won't have to dig through cvs-ghc to find the interesting bits.

Andrew


On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Sean Leather <leather <at> cs.uu.nl> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 06:25:49PM +0200, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
>
> +1. I'd like to follow GHC development discussions, but getting all the
> commits is too much.

I'm surprised by this, FWIW. I think skimming the commits is a good way
to get an idea of what's going on,

Indeed, it can be. But I can't keep up with the huge number of commits everyday, and I'm not interested in the large majority of them.

while discussions between developers
tend to be focussed on particular obscure points (e.g. discussing
correctness of a murky corner in the intersection between 2 new type
system extensions, or discussing the way PIC is handled on OSX/PowerPC)
which I wouldn't have thought were of much interest to any party not
involved in the discussion and familiar with the details.

I find these things (both examples, actually) more interesting. I'm more likely to follow such threads than I am to skim the commits.

Anyway, I'm not really too fussed about what mailing lists we have. I'll
just subscribe to them all anyway  :-)

I'm not too fussed about it, either, but I wouldn't mind a restructuring. I might even subscribe to them all as well, but then it will be easier to follow the commits at a different pace from the rest (without having to create a new filter, which I've been so far too lazy to do).

Regards,
Sean

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users


_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Simon Marlow | 6 Dec 22:20 2012
Picon

Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

On 06/12/12 13:23, Sean Leather wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>
>     My own understanding is this:
>
>     A GHC *user* is someone who uses GHC, but doesn't care how it is
>     implemented.
>     A GHC *developer* is someone who wants to work on GHC itself in some
>     way.
>
>     The current mailing lists:
>
>     * glasgow-haskell-users: for anything that a GHC *user* cares about
>     * glasgow-haskell-bugs: same, but with a focus on bug reporting
>     * cvs-ghc: for GHC *developers*
>
>     I don't think we want to confuse users with developers.  If we flood
>     users with dev-related conversations they'll get fed up.
>
>     I don't see a very useful distinction between glasgow-haskell-users
>     and glasgow-haskell-bugs.  The distinction was very important before
>     we had a bug tracker, but it doesn't seem useful now.
>
>     I can see a perhaps-useful distinction between two *developer* lists
>       (A) human email about implementation aspects of GHC
>       (B) machine-generated email from buildbots etc
>
>     I rather think that (A) could usefully include Trac ticket creation
>     and Git commit messages, since both are really human-generated.
>
>
> I think the last two things (tickets and commit messages) should be
> separate from a mailing that is intended for (email-only) discussion.
> The content may be human-generated, but:
>
> (1) The number of messages is overwhelming. Alternatively stated, if you
> consider each ticket or commit message a different thread (which many
> email clients do), the number of different threads is large.
> (2) The commit messages do not all lead to conversations, and most of
> the discussion on tickets takes place on Trac with every message
> duplicated to the list.
>
> Consequently, any email-only discussion threads on the mailing list can
> easily get lost among all the other threads.
>
>     So that would leave only buildbot logs on (B).
>
>
>     So I would be content to
>        * Abolish glasgow-haskell-bugs in favour of glasgow-haskell-users
>        * Split out cvs-ghc into two in some way; details to be agreed.
>
>     But for me the issue is not a pressing one.
>
>
> I identify the following different needs:
>
> (1) User email discussion
> (2) Developer email discussion
> (3) Buildbot reports
> (4) Trac reports
> (5) Commit messages

Sounds good to me.  I like the idea of separating out the buildbot 
reports too, because there tends to be little signal in those (I 
typically only look at one per day, just to check whether there's 
anything really broken).  Although that problem could be solved a 
different way, by having the build server emit a single email with a 
good summary once per day.

Cheers,
	Simon
Ian Lynagh | 6 Dec 18:04 2012

Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:29:01PM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> My own understanding is this:
> 
> A GHC *user* is someone who uses GHC, but doesn't care how it is implemented.
> A GHC *developer* is someone who wants to work on GHC itself in some way.
> 
> The current mailing lists:
> 
> * glasgow-haskell-users: for anything that a GHC *user* cares about
> * glasgow-haskell-bugs: same, but with a focus on bug reporting

I see glasgow-haskell-bugs as being mainly for developers, who want to
see what bugs are coming in.

It's true that we do give e-mailing it as a (less preferred) way for
users to submit a bug on
    http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ReportABug
but I wonder if we shouldn't change that. It's rare that we get a bug
report e-mailed, and normally we ultimately end up creating a trac
ticket for it anyway. I'm sure that people who really want to submit a
bug report and for whatever reason can't use trac will e-mail it
somewhere sensible.

Thanks
Ian
Iavor Diatchki | 6 Dec 18:42 2012
Picon

Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

Hello,


I also sometimes wish that GHC developer discussions happened in a single place, separate from the commits and ticket lists (at present they are sometimes on ghc-users and sometimes on cvs-ghc).   For what it's worth, I don't follow the commit and build-bot messages closely, instead I use various git tools to catch up on what's going on with the development (mostly I use gitk, git-gub, and our own git-web instance on darcs.haskell.org).   I do find the trac bug messages useful though, both as a GHC user and a GHC developer.

-Iavor



On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Ian Lynagh <ian <at> well-typed.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:29:01PM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> My own understanding is this:
>
> A GHC *user* is someone who uses GHC, but doesn't care how it is implemented.
> A GHC *developer* is someone who wants to work on GHC itself in some way.
>
> The current mailing lists:
>
> * glasgow-haskell-users: for anything that a GHC *user* cares about
> * glasgow-haskell-bugs: same, but with a focus on bug reporting

I see glasgow-haskell-bugs as being mainly for developers, who want to
see what bugs are coming in.

It's true that we do give e-mailing it as a (less preferred) way for
users to submit a bug on
    http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ReportABug
but I wonder if we shouldn't change that. It's rare that we get a bug
report e-mailed, and normally we ultimately end up creating a trac
ticket for it anyway. I'm sure that people who really want to submit a
bug report and for whatever reason can't use trac will e-mail it
somewhere sensible.


Thanks
Ian


_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Simon Marlow | 6 Dec 22:15 2012
Picon

Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

On 06/12/12 17:04, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:29:01PM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>> My own understanding is this:
>>
>> A GHC *user* is someone who uses GHC, but doesn't care how it is implemented.
>> A GHC *developer* is someone who wants to work on GHC itself in some way.
>>
>> The current mailing lists:
>>
>> * glasgow-haskell-users: for anything that a GHC *user* cares about
>> * glasgow-haskell-bugs: same, but with a focus on bug reporting
>
> I see glasgow-haskell-bugs as being mainly for developers, who want to
> see what bugs are coming in.
>
> It's true that we do give e-mailing it as a (less preferred) way for
> users to submit a bug on
>      http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ReportABug
> but I wonder if we shouldn't change that. It's rare that we get a bug
> report e-mailed, and normally we ultimately end up creating a trac
> ticket for it anyway. I'm sure that people who really want to submit a
> bug report and for whatever reason can't use trac will e-mail it
> somewhere sensible.

+1.  ghc-bugs used to be for user-generated bug reports, but now it is 
almost exclusively Trac-generated emails. I don't think anything is 
gained by suggesting that people email bug reports any more.

Cheers,
	Simon
Ian Lynagh | 7 Dec 22:07 2012

Re: proposal: separate lists for ghc-cvs commits and ghc-dev chatter

On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:15:06PM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 06/12/12 17:04, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> >
> >It's true that we do give e-mailing it as a (less preferred) way for
> >users to submit a bug on
> >     http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ReportABug
> >but I wonder if we shouldn't change that. It's rare that we get a bug
> >report e-mailed, and normally we ultimately end up creating a trac
> >ticket for it anyway. I'm sure that people who really want to submit a
> >bug report and for whatever reason can't use trac will e-mail it
> >somewhere sensible.
> 
> +1.  ghc-bugs used to be for user-generated bug reports, but now it
> is almost exclusively Trac-generated emails. I don't think anything
> is gained by suggesting that people email bug reports any more.

I've removed that option from ReportABug.

Thanks
Ian

Gmane