On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 05:09:23PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>
> (2) seems good to me. Furthermore, if we published
> Last good build is at repo http://darcs.haskell.org/ghc-2007-02-09
> (so the date is in the repo name), and refrain from publishing until the repo
> is really there, there'd be no atomicity issues would there?
>
> (We can just delete older ones after a bit.)
In practice, I think atomicity will rarely cause a problem (we already
have the same theoretical issue with the HEAD when we push patches
ourselves), and it would be much more convenient just to
darcs get http://darcs.haskell.org/ghc-windows-builds/ghc
and then always darcs pull from that repo, rather than having to find
out which repo you should be pulling from today.
"darcs send" would go to the same place as the main repo, and no-one
(other than the appropriate buildbot slaves) would be able to write to
the *-builds repos, so you couldn't accidentally push your patches to
the wrong repo.
Thanks
Ian
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
