From gdt at lexort.com  Fri Dec 11 10:49:21 2020
From: gdt at lexort.com (Greg Troxel)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 10:49:21 -0500
Subject: [Unison-hackers] ocaml interop table
Message-ID: <rmizh2k1gxq.fsf@s1.lexort.com>


I just tried running recent git unison built with 4.11 against 4.09.  It
was able to correctly determine a lack of changes, but failed to acually
sync.  No surprise, but I had wondered if that was a lucky combination.

I stuck what I have observed in a table in the wiki.  Perhaps there is
little value in this, but if you are able to sync and have zero issues
across any specific pair of ocaml versions, that's interesting
informaiton that might be helpful to someone, so please feel free to
edit or email me the info.

https://github.com/bcpierce00/unison/wiki/ocaml-version-interoperability
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://LISTS.SEAS.UPENN.EDU/pipermail/unison-hackers/attachments/20201211/660e8ec9/attachment.asc>

From gdt at lexort.com  Mon Dec 28 19:02:32 2020
From: gdt at lexort.com (Greg Troxel)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 19:02:32 -0500
Subject: [Unison-hackers] time for a release/rc1?
Message-ID: <rmipn2tzdgn.fsf@s1.lexort.com>


I've been somewhat paged out from unison the last few weeks, but it
seems that we are at a point where changes are slowing and we think
things are better than the last release.  So I am inclined to tag an rc
and call for testing.

So:

  If you think this isn't a good idea, please speak up.  Including if
  you think some specific action should be taken first.

  Regardless, if you are able to test the latest from git, that's
  useful.

Depending on what I hear from this message, I'll probably drop a
2.51.4_rc1 tag in the repo in a few days, and we can then test/etc. that
for maybe a week, very ish.

At this point the only question I have is about
  https://github.com/bcpierce00/unison/pull/447
which I have some philosophical concerns about because it is basically
about accomodating an arguably buggy proprietary program.  Perhaps that
is the right thing to do, and if Benjamin wants to hit merge, I don't
object, but I haven't arrived at comfortable for me yet.   Sorry if this
is feeling overly cranky; I'm still coming to terms with it.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://LISTS.SEAS.UPENN.EDU/pipermail/unison-hackers/attachments/20201228/e28932d6/attachment.asc>

From bcpierce at cis.upenn.edu  Mon Dec 28 19:33:20 2020
From: bcpierce at cis.upenn.edu (Benjamin Pierce)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 19:33:20 -0500
Subject: [Unison-hackers] time for a release/rc1?
In-Reply-To: <rmipn2tzdgn.fsf@s1.lexort.com>
References: <rmipn2tzdgn.fsf@s1.lexort.com>
Message-ID: <CABgF7-M2GhrWsf4x_UtsndwQwt6sR1thvOMLP28YmYLLpjU4pA@mail.gmail.com>

I remain mildly against adding new preferences (the number we already have
is more than a bit overwhelming! and they require bumping the major
version).  I don't object to changing the default prefix / suffix if we
could agree on reasonable choices, but I'm a bit concerned even there
that we may break people's working setups if anyone has written
scripts, etc., that know about the current values.


On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 7:02 PM Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

>
> I've been somewhat paged out from unison the last few weeks, but it
> seems that we are at a point where changes are slowing and we think
> things are better than the last release.  So I am inclined to tag an rc
> and call for testing.
>
> So:
>
>   If you think this isn't a good idea, please speak up.  Including if
>   you think some specific action should be taken first.
>
>   Regardless, if you are able to test the latest from git, that's
>   useful.
>
> Depending on what I hear from this message, I'll probably drop a
> 2.51.4_rc1 tag in the repo in a few days, and we can then test/etc. that
> for maybe a week, very ish.
>
> At this point the only question I have is about
>   https://github.com/bcpierce00/unison/pull/447
> which I have some philosophical concerns about because it is basically
> about accomodating an arguably buggy proprietary program.  Perhaps that
> is the right thing to do, and if Benjamin wants to hit merge, I don't
> object, but I haven't arrived at comfortable for me yet.   Sorry if this
> is feeling overly cranky; I'm still coming to terms with it.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unison-hackers mailing list
> Unison-hackers at LISTS.SEAS.UPENN.EDU
> https://LISTS.SEAS.UPENN.EDU/mailman/listinfo/unison-hackers
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://LISTS.SEAS.UPENN.EDU/pipermail/unison-hackers/attachments/20201228/4a008130/attachment.htm>