On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:47:02 +0100
Berke Durak <berke.durak@exalead.com> wrote:

> Maxence Guesdon a écrit :
> > Berke Durak <berke.durak@exalead.com> wrote:
> >> Most links on the Humps are dead.  For instance,
> >> I can't find a copy of Baire.
> > 
> > Sorry, buy I can't let you say that, because it's wrong. I made a quick
> > check (using wget) of the urls associated to each contributions of the caml
> > humps.
> 
> I should have said "many" instead of "most" but then you wouldn't bother
> writing to the list :)

It was a good occasion to pass the message "do not forget to warn caml-hump
about modifications" ;-)

>  > The quality of the links of the hump depends on the information I can gather
>  > from announces on caml-list and mails to caml-hump@inria.fr. I don't crawl
>  > the web all the day to find new or updated contributions.
> 
> I appreciate the humps for being a nicely organized and aesthetically-
> pleasant official place to put Ocaml stuff, and I know it's your work that made it that way.
> 
> However, the model where one person updates the entries for hundreds of contributions can't
> and doesn't scale and you just gave numbers proving it.  Do you really want to spend your
> days updating link entries?  I don't want you to.  You have better things to do.
> 
> Why not just allow contributors to update their fields, in the LinkDB way?
> You can of course keep moderating and ensuring that there is no spam or misclassifications.

It's just to keep it consistent, and the number of adds/updates is not
high, so the time spent on administrating the hump is by far shorter than
the time it would take to develop a registering system and moderate the
modifications.

> Having that permanent archive we are talking about is also part of the solution.

I agree. The hump does not aim to be any kind of repository, just a list of
links with some order. If/when an official place with files and
classification where to find all contribs existed/exists, the hump
would/will be useless.

Maxence