Simon Marlow wrote,
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
I don't quite understand why (2) is much easier to implement and
having a tag a week in the main tree marking a buildable state seems
quite attractive to me. Anyway, Option (2) is fine, too.
For (2) I was thinking we could just add a target in the top-level
Makefile that runs 'darcs push' for each of the repos, and invoke that
as a step from buildbot. It's a bit simpler than having to invent a tag
name, tag each repo and push the tags.
If instead we had a new repo for each snapshot as per Simon PJ's
suggestion, I would do it like this: after the initial darcs-all pull,
tar up the whole tree. If the build succeeds, scp the tarball to
darcs.haskell.org and unpack it in the right place. The snapshot repos
would be partial, but that's hopefully not a problem. Again this can
all be a target in the top-level Makefile invoked via BuildBot. (my
builds have passwordless SSH access already because I upload the
binary/source distributions to haskell.org).
Andy's staging repo idea is interesting, but I think it's more work than
the above two strategies, so we should see if the easy way is sufficient
first.
However, just http://darcs.haskell.org/ghc-2007-02-09 isn't good
enough. We need a consistent set of ghc repo and core packages.
Yes - I was assuming that we'd snapshot the core packages too (but not
the extra packages).
Ok, sounds good.
Manuel (who didn't get his ghc to re-build even after make distclean yesterday
and now pulls todays patches wondering whether its going to be any better, or
whether he has to pull - once again - a completely new tree of the repo *sigh*)
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
