Thorkil: Thanks for the diligent tracking.
Claus: any suggestions in how to reproduce this would be welcome.
As I mentioned earlier, I wasn't able to reproduce it myself,
though I only tried starting from patches mentioning QA.hs or
Check.hs. The actual error pattern is familiar, though, and has
appeared before.
Reading your past comment more carefully, I noticed this
it is just possible that the Cabal repo I pulled into already had
leftover stuff in pending or other issues.
...which seems to indicate that this might be our old friend
http://bugs.darcs.net/issue494 again
I suspected as much, and it might well have been the first time
I used darcs2 to pull into that repo. But even with first pulling
via darcs1, then unpulling, and re-pulling via darcs2, I wasn't
able to reproduce this effect. Does darcs2 modify darcs1 repos
in some way, cleaning up possible error sources?
Until we can have something reproducible, I think the best
thing for me to do is to declare that is a duplicate of a darcs
1.0.9 bug (resolved).
It is worrying that these bugs can't be reproduced in reality,
only in a reduced test case, and that apparently hard enough
to come by. It would be so much more reassuring if one
could reason backwards from the fix to find the step that
goes wrong, reproduce the actual error with darcs-before-fix
and show that it doesn't happen with darcs-after-fix. Why is
that so rarely possible with darcs bugs and fixes?
Thanks,
Claus
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
