+1 from me as well.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:31 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel h...@gnu.org wrote:
Hello All,
It seems to me, there were no major obstacles left unaddressed in the
previous discussion[1] (see summary below) to merging testsuite.git into
ghc.git.
So here's one last attempt to
Hello All,
It seems to me, there were no major obstacles left unaddressed in the
previous discussion[1] (see summary below) to merging testsuite.git into
ghc.git.
So here's one last attempt to get testsuite.git folded into ghc.git before
Austin branches off 7.8
Please speak up *now*, if you
I'm all for it!
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of
| Herbert Valerio Riedel
| Sent: 09 January 2014 10:31
| To: ghc-devs
| Subject: Folding ghc/testsuite repos *now*, 2nd attempt (was: Repository
| Reorganization Question
: Folding ghc/testsuite repos *now*, 2nd attempt (was: Repository
| Reorganization Question)
|
| Hello All,
|
| It seems to me, there were no major obstacles left unaddressed in the
| previous discussion[1] (see summary below) to merging testsuite.git into
| ghc.git.
|
| So here's one last
I don't feel terribly strongly about this, but I'd rather not clutter up
the commit messages. As long as we keep the old testsuite.git
repository attached to Trac, we can always find the old commits, and
Google is a good hash table for SHA-1 keys.
Cheers,
Simon
On 10/12/2013 21:42, Herbert
Hi Ben,
On 2013-12-10 at 17:53:23 +0100, Ben Gamari wrote:
If the old commit IDs are really needed, one would think it wouldn't be
too hard to write them into the commit message while rewriting
history. That way you could at least `git log --grep` IIRC.
Good idea, that's quite easy actually,
On 06/12/2013 15:43, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
On 2013-12-06 at 13:50:55 +0100, Johan Tibell wrote:
Whichever way to go, we should write down the options and
consequences and
communicating them widely enough so no core devs get surprised.
Commit IDs for the test suite are referenced in
On 2013-12-09 at 09:18:09 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
[...]
...as I hinted at in an earlier post, the old commit-ids will still
allow to find the original commit; for isntance, there's already the
find-commit-by-sha1 service at
http://git.haskell.org/.findhash/commit-sha1-prefix
which
On 2013-12-09 at 09:34:23 +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Am Montag, den 09.12.2013, 09:24 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio Riedel:
What kind of links are you referring to btw? I don't see any clickable
GHC SHA1 ids these days anymore... :-)
well, people do write SHA1 ids in tickets comments
Hi,
Am Montag, den 09.12.2013, 09:23 + schrieb Simon Marlow:
I'm confused. We definitely do have clickable commit links, inserted
automatically by the post-commit hook, e.g.:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8577#comment:21
Those links would break if the hashes change, right?
On 09/12/2013 09:28, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am Montag, den 09.12.2013, 09:23 + schrieb Simon Marlow:
I'm confused. We definitely do have clickable commit links, inserted
automatically by the post-commit hook, e.g.:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8577#comment:21
Those links
On 2013-12-05 at 14:32:10 +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
[...]
whereas, when I create a new git repo containing only the HEAD commit
from testsuite.git, the resulting single packfile:
204K Dec 5 14:19
.git/objects/pack/pack-27355d714321978fd34c21ce341a7b55f416719a.idx
2.5M Dec 5
Hi,
When we merge in the testsuite repo, can we still keep the old commit IDs?
They're referenced from all over the place.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Joachim Breitner
m...@joachim-breitner.dewrote:
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 06.12.2013, 11:05 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio Riedel:
PS: if
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 06.12.2013, 13:01 +0100 schrieb Johan Tibell:
When we merge in the testsuite repo, can we still keep the old commit
IDs? They're referenced from all over the place.
that depends on the style of merge:
* With pathname rewriting:
+ git can easily trace the history of a
On 2013-12-06 at 13:01:41 +0100, Johan Tibell wrote:
When we merge in the testsuite repo, can we still keep the old commit IDs?
They're referenced from all over the place.
...if we want to preserve the old testsuite's commit-ids, then we'll
have to live with carrying around those superflous
Whichever way to go, we should write down the options and consequences and
communicating them widely enough so no core devs get surprised.
Commit IDs for the test suite are referenced in e.g. various Trac issues,
on mailing lists (although rarely), and perhaps even in code.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013
On 2013-12-06 at 13:50:55 +0100, Johan Tibell wrote:
Whichever way to go, we should write down the options and consequences and
communicating them widely enough so no core devs get surprised.
Commit IDs for the test suite are referenced in e.g. various Trac issues,
on mailing lists (although
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel h...@gnu.org wrote:
On 2013-12-06 at 13:50:55 +0100, Johan Tibell wrote:
Whichever way to go, we should write down the options and consequences
and
communicating them widely enough so no core devs get surprised.
Commit IDs for the
personally i don't care about the bandwidth, and others are correct about
the value of logs. If theres a way to get both, awesome! If not, 20mb here
and there i don't care.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Herbert
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 05.12.2013, 12:15 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio
Riedel:
PS: I didn't merge in testsuite's Git history as that would bloat
ghc.git quite a bit;
would that really be a problem? How different are the numbers?
I’m a fan of keeping history readily available, so unless it
Hello Joachim,
On 2013-12-05 at 12:56:55 +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 05.12.2013, 12:15 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio
Riedel:
PS: I didn't merge in testsuite's Git history as that would bloat
ghc.git quite a bit;
would that really be a problem? How different are the
On 2013-12-05 at 15:17:53 +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:03:42PM +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
However, if the testsuite/ was already checked out before the 'sync-all
pull', the 'testsuite/.git' folder won't be removed automatically (and
it shouldn't hurt either,
I'm all for converting to submodules. Since we will have submodules
anyway, we could also convert testsuite et al to submodules and see how
painful that is before deciding to fold them in to the main repo. I'm
not clear on the pros/cons of having, e.g., testsuite, as a submodule vs
folded in. The
Hi all,
While discussing something with Herbert this week in preparation of
making a new stable branch, he brought a good point to my attention,
which is that if we go ahead and reorganize the repository situation
post 7.8, merging things to the stable branch from HEAD will become a
bit harder.
-
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of
| Austin Seipp
| Sent: 04 December 2013 21:25
| To: ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Repository Reorganization Question
|
| Hi all,
|
| While discussing something with Herbert this week in preparation of
| making a new stable
25 matches
Mail list logo
