On 09/06/13 17:51, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 11:15:37AM -0500, Austin Seipp wrote:
I'm referring to Joachim Breitner's work on
splitting the base.
So what's the timeline here?
As soon as possible after 7.8 is branched.
Has there been a decision somewhere on what to do?
On 06/12/2013 12:37 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:54:38AM +0200, Daniel Trstenjak wrote:
I guess [the merge commits] may not cause any actual problems,
but it's certainly nicer
not having them (which is what using submodules gives us).
Just to clarify, my problem isn't so
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:13:37PM +0200, Daniel Trstenjak wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:45:22AM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Is this possible with subtrees?:
* Initially ghc's Cabal repo is at the same commit as upstream
* We make a local commit 123 in Cabal to fix some bug
* Cabal
Hi Ian,
I guess they may not cause any actual problems, but it's certainly nicer
not having them (which is what using submodules gives us).
I don't quite understand how you should get rid of these merge commits
by using submodules, because at the end every submodule is just a git repository
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
* John Lato jwl...@gmail.com [2013-06-10 07:59:55+0800]
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info
wrote:
What I'm trying to say here is that there's hope for a portable base.
Maybe not
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 11:45 +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Side note: the fingerprint script *didn't even work* for almost
a year after it was introduced; see commit 73ce2e70.
Which implies that wanting to go back in time is rare, so making it
easy
should be given low weight when considering
On 06/10/2013 11:49 AM, Nicolas Trangez wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 11:45 +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Side note: the fingerprint script *didn't even work* for almost
a year after it was introduced; see commit 73ce2e70.
Which implies that wanting to go back in time is rare, so making it
easy
Hi Austin,
I apologize for not having read the full email yet (I'm in a hurry right
now), but...
* Austin Seipp ase...@pobox.com [2013-06-09 00:23:22-0500]
-- Let's just put base and testsuite inside the GHC repository
directly. No submodules, no floating repos. Just put it directly
inside
Hi Roman,
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
I'm a strong -1 on this. As one example, we have forks of base and
ghc-prim for Haskell suite:
https://github.com/haskell-suite/base
https://github.com/haskell-suite/ghc-prim
which would be much more
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Jan Stolarek jan.stola...@p.lodz.pl wrote:
I admire your talent for writing emails ;-)
You can be honest and just call them what they are: horribly written novellas.
As you wrote in your email I'm totally for including testsuite into GHC,
because it is
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 11:15:37AM -0500, Austin Seipp wrote:
I'm referring to Joachim Breitner's work on
splitting the base.
So what's the timeline here?
As soon as possible after 7.8 is branched.
Thanks
Ian
___
ghc-devs mailing list
You can be honest and just call them what they are: horribly written
novellas.
Actually, I was thinking that instead of posting to the list you might consider
publishing your
emails as papers on workshops or symposia ;)
for high-traffic repositories, some of the concerns are disconcerning.
Oh, and I've been made aware that git 1.7 and later can checkout a subdirectory
of a repo - this
partially invalidates my previous argument. I'm saying partially, because it is
a bit more
difficult than dealing with a library that has its own repo + it seems that
some potential
contributors
* Austin Seipp ase...@pobox.com [2013-06-09 11:15:37-0500]
Hi Roman,
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
I'm a strong -1 on this. As one example, we have forks of base and
ghc-prim for Haskell suite:
https://github.com/haskell-suite/base
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
What I'm trying to say here is that there's hope for a portable base.
Maybe not in the form of split base — I don't know.
But it's the direction we should be moving anyways.
And usurping base by GHC is a move in the
* John Lato jwl...@gmail.com [2013-06-10 07:59:55+0800]
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
What I'm trying to say here is that there's hope for a portable base.
Maybe not in the form of split base — I don't know.
But it's the direction we should be
16 matches
Mail list logo
