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 EEBF87FC22 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:10:27 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of gabriel.scherer@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.213.171; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="gabriel.scherer@gmail.com"; x-sender="gabriel.scherer@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of gabriel.scherer@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.171 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.213.171; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="gabriel.scherer@gmail.com"; x-sender="gabriel.scherer@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail-ig0-f171.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.213.171; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="gabriel.scherer@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-ig0-f171.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AOAgAsFuJUlKvVVdFcg1haBIJ/r16NboFuhXECgQ8HQwEBAQEBARABAQEBBwsLCRIwhAwBAQEDARIRHQEbEgsBAwELBgUEBw0NHQICIgERAQUBChIGExIQh3YBAwkIDapFPjGLLoFrgneLcgoZJwMKVIRyAQEBAQEFAQEBAQEBARUBBQ6KfoRpBAeCaIFCBYRWCo4vhWCBGDiCVY0eEiOBDAmBfYIUPTGCQwEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: A0AOAgAsFuJUlKvVVdFcg1haBIJ/r16NboFuhXECgQ8HQwEBAQEBARABAQEBBwsLCRIwhAwBAQEDARIRHQEbEgsBAwELBgUEBw0NHQICIgERAQUBChIGExIQh3YBAwkIDapFPjGLLoFrgneLcgoZJwMKVIRyAQEBAQEFAQEBAQEBARUBBQ6KfoRpBAeCaIFCBYRWCo4vhWCBGDiCVY0eEiOBDAmBfYIUPTGCQwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,588,1418079600"; d="scan'208";a="100245482" Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com ([209.85.213.171]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 16 Feb 2015 17:10:27 +0100 Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id h15so24335419igd.4 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:10:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=uwd++NPWE5DSRmiJHSGTxcgF9h0NCCezUu0YwQV1Z6s=; b=08cxLN3UhVOrxpfeNSVxCbOlUN4WZj38qIGeyY1fEr4ty7Dkzxoi6f9ly3+Gxf5HBz G5zpeQ05hAz/QAoeK0u37kdwH4+XKf78mcQtf4j4fl5ANFDH+bRb024TpWvda0WLuXXM dwIF+2FhtSudwel8KXMUclokENx7A9xdyfkcHdS5l0nws0qxBeMz59ZyAVNsfrbZKR+p QSclaigaLyyJ/qnHgsvRg+dp5c8p9+TtZ7m82GVf7661YDo78QvByGrczJG+rCmFqovG /DILNRc2VDpMbOk2xNqRhaUuAyEw1oXqh+8miYofmafLBxN9RucIkIYFGx/sNsTGjFZA XZtw== X-Received: by 10.50.137.99 with SMTP id qh3mr22614091igb.7.1424103025904; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:10:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.13.16 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:09:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54E213D9.6030705@cea.fr> References: <54E213D9.6030705@cea.fr> From: Gabriel Scherer Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:09:45 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Bobot?= Cc: caml users Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3bcbcfb9499050f36d255 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OPAM: retiring 3.12.1 testing? --001a11c3bcbcfb9499050f36d255 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agreed. Some people still use 4.02.0; we should hunt them, understand their use-case (I heard it could be something so simple to fix that "this PR I use the automatic opam switch for was submitted for 4.02.0"), and move them to 4.02.1. Please speak up if you're concerned! There is no good reason to suffer the atrocious compilation times. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Fran=C3=A7ois Bobot wrote: > On 16/02/2015 12:04, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote: > >> We are currently testing the following compiler versions on every pull >> request to OPAM; >> >> - OCaml 3.12.1 >> - OCaml 4.00.1 >> - OCaml 4.01.0 >> - OCaml 4.02.0 >> >> >> Running 6 compiler revisions per package puts quite a bit of stress on >> our Travis CI >> resources, and so it's probably time to retire OCaml 3.12.1 from the >> testing matrix. >> >> > More than 3.12.1, I think 4.02.0 should retire when 4.02.1 enter. > > OCaml 4.02.1 added a lot of important fixes, I think nobody should use > 4.02.0 instead of 4.02.1. > > Best, > > -- > Fran=C3=A7ois Bobot > > > -- > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > --001a11c3bcbcfb9499050f36d255 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Agreed. Some people still use 4.02.0; we should hunt them,= understand their use-case (I heard it could be something so simple to fix = that "this PR I use the automatic opam switch for was submitted for 4.= 02.0"), and move them to 4.02.1.

Please speak up if= you're concerned! There is no good reason to suffer the atrocious comp= ilation times.

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Fran=C3=A7ois Bobot <francoi= s.bobot@cea.fr> wrote:
On 16/02/2015 12:04, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
We are currently testing the following compiler versions on every pull requ= est to OPAM;

- OCaml 3.12.1
- OCaml 4.00.1
- OCaml 4.01.0
- OCaml 4.02.0


 Running 6 compiler revisions per package puts quite a bit of stress on our = Travis CI
resources, and so it's probably time to retire OCaml 3.12.1 from the te= sting matrix.


More than 3.12.1, I think 4.02.0 should retire when 4.02.1 enter.

OCaml 4.02.1 added a lot of important fixes, I think nobody should use 4.02= .0 instead of 4.02.1.

Best,

--
Fran=C3=A7ois Bobot

--
Caml-list mailing list.=C2=A0 Subscription management and archives:
ht= tps://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners<= /a>
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

--001a11c3bcbcfb9499050f36d255--