On 11 October 2005 15:22, John Goerzen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:58:08AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > > [ various snipping ] > >> The following projects are not in active development and could stay >> in CVS: >> >> greencard, green-card, haggis, hdirect, hood, hws, hx > > True, it probably wouldn't matter much. OTOH, if some parts are being > converted at this point, I'd suggest just going ahead and converting > the rest. That way, you don't have to maintain/watch two different > systems. And, should these packages see development in the future, > they'd be ready to go.
The problem I was tryig to avoid was having to figure out how to share the fptools build system between multiple projects in darcs. This was the sticking point last time, IIRC. I suppose you could just duplicate the shared parts in each repo, it's not a big deal. >> What I'm not clear about is how to handle the libraries subtree. >> This is used by nhc98 and Hugs too, and presumably it would be >> inconvenient for them if they had to 'darcs get' an entire GHC tree >> just to get the libraries. Ideas? Perhaps we should have a >> separate libraries repository from which we can push/pull patches >> to/from the GHC repo? Perhaps we should convert libraries into a >> darcs repo of its own, and then pull it into the GHC repo (how do >> you create the repos such that this is possible - do they have to >> have a common root of some kind?). > > It is possible to have nested darcs repos. Ok, that sounds like a reasonable solution. So, we'll have one darcs repo for GHC containing fptools with subdirs distrib, docs, ghc, glafp-utils, mk. Plus separate repos for libraries, nofib, and testsuite. >> Also, we'll need a two-way CVS gateway between the old fptools and >> the GHC darcs repo (and the libraries repo), at least for the time >> being. > > There is some information at > http://darcs.net/DarcsWiki/Tailor/CvSync#head-ef1c647c5b2be460867dc49aec fb05a6bc02df1f > about doing this, so it is possible. > > I haven't specifically tried this with tailor & darcs. > > However, in general, it seems that these sort of arrangements are > somewhat flaky, require a lot of babysitting, and are prone to error. > > I'd rather suggest a cutoff teim. I don't mind doing a "practice" and > then a "real" conversion, if that's what it would take. The practice > conversion would let people poke at things and make sure that they are > working as they like. That seems a bit extreme, I envisage lots of grumbling from existing CVS users. Any tailor.py experts willing to help out? >> Long term, when we no longer need CVS, I'd like to rearrange the GHC >> tree. We can rename the root from fptools to ghc (yay!) and flatten >> the hierarchy. > > That might be another thing to consider doing right now. If we're doing two-way syncing, large-scale reorganisations of the tree are certain to cause difficulties. I'll leave it until we are free of CVS. Cheers, Simon _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
