From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A0A97F798 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 08:16:02 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of anil@recoil.org) identity=pra; client-ip=5.153.225.51; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anil@recoil.org"; x-sender="anil@recoil.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of anil@recoil.org) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=5.153.225.51; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anil@recoil.org"; x-sender="anil@recoil.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@bark.recoil.org) identity=helo; client-ip=5.153.225.51; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anil@recoil.org"; x-sender="postmaster@bark.recoil.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CDBQDT6eJU/zPhmQVbgwZkA0XINwIIgQpDAQEBAQEBfIQMAQEBAwEYIj8QCxguVwYTHogHDM4yAQEBAQEBBAEBAQEBAQEBARmLDIQcAQEcMwcwgmaBFAWYb4ZPjD4ig25vgQuBOAEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: A0CDBQDT6eJU/zPhmQVbgwZkA0XINwIIgQpDAQEBAQEBfIQMAQEBAwEYIj8QCxguVwYTHogHDM4yAQEBAQEBBAEBAQEBAQEBARmLDIQcAQEcMwcwgmaBFAWYb4ZPjD4ig25vgQuBOAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,593,1418079600"; d="scan'208";a="100301436" Received: from bark.recoil.org ([5.153.225.51]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 Feb 2015 08:16:01 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.39] (cpc7-cmbg14-2-0-cust238.5-4.cable.virginm.net [86.30.244.239]); by bark.recoil.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id f610ce7e; TLS version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:15:59 +0000 (GMT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Anil Madhavapeddy In-Reply-To: <20150216185248.GA18316@notk.org> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:15:59 +0000 Cc: Ocaml Mailing List , opam-devel Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7015E232-4094-481F-8906-EA35470701E4@recoil.org> References: <20150216185248.GA18316@notk.org> To: Adrien Nader X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OPAM: retiring 3.12.1 testing? On 16 Feb 2015, at 18:52, Adrien Nader wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote: >> Dear OCaml list, >>=20 >> We are currently testing the following compiler versions on every pull r= equest to OPAM; >>=20 >> - OCaml 3.12.1 >> - OCaml 4.00.1 >> - OCaml 4.01.0 >> - OCaml 4.02.0 My apologies -- there were a couple of typos in my original mail. I meant = that we are testing *opam-repository* with the above versions, not OPAM itself (= which can be tested on a much bigger set of compiler versions). Also, we are not cur= rently testing 4.02.0 with packages, just 4.02.1, as the slow compilation speed of= 4.02.0 makes it impractical to do so. >> We will shortly have to test 4.02.1, and would also like to test trunk s= napshots of the >> compiler as an "allowed failure". >>=20 >> Running 6 compiler revisions per package puts quite a bit of stress on o= ur Travis CI >> resources, and so it's probably time to retire OCaml 3.12.1 from the tes= ting matrix. >>=20 >> Before we do this, I'd like to get a sense for how many people still car= e about ensuring >> that their packages work well on the 3.12.1 series, or if there are stil= l distributions >> for which this support matters. If there is still sufficient interest, = we can continue >> to support 3.12.1 for some time. >=20 > For yypkg/win-builds I've done a quick survey of what's in Linux > distributions. I was mainly interested in moving past 3.12.1 > compatibility for my own code but found it undoable before the end of > this year or maybe early next year. >=20 > Ubuntu 12.04 has 3.12.1 and is still supported and widespread. 14.04 has > 4.01.0 but isn't very old. Debian has a similar combination for its > versions. I think 4.02.0 wasn't picked by linux distributions with > long-term support (including RH if I'm not mistaken). >=20 > 3.12.1 is really widespread and I think it has to be kept for a fairly > long time. 4.00.0 is basically never used. 4.01.0 is widespread and will > be widespread for some time. 4.02.0 is nowhere to be seen. I believe > 4.02.0/1 and maybe 4.02.2 won't be picked up either (unless 4.03.0 takes > close to two years to be released). >=20 > I'd say: keep 3.12.1, 4.01.0, 4.02.whatever-is-the-most-recent (because > that's what ocamlers use) and trunk. Dump the others (i.e. 4.00.1, > 4.02.0). I agree with this assessment, although I'll try to keep 4.00.1 as long as possible to make it possible to have finer grained constraints and make bisection tests easier. Thanks for all the feedback, everyone! Anil=