Eric Kow <[email protected]> writes: > Nevertheless, if the GHC team are going to postpone their switch, what > can we do to make their current darcs experience more enjoyable?
Do we know how long GHC plan (either officially or unofficially) to defer their VCS migration for? It's all very well for us to talk about a twelve-month roadmap for major improvements, but if GHC are really looking at migrating in the next quarter, that's not going to help. > Maybe we could get them to use hashed format repositories with --lazy > so that they don't have to ship tarballs around? I think that getting their team using darcs 2.2 and --hashed repositories is a relatively easy thing to do, and would have significant benefits for them. (Lurkers, notes that --hashed is the "halfway house" between darcs-1 and darcs-2; it gives you some of the benefits of darcs-2 without the need for a "darcs convert" and retaining the ability to share patches with darcs-1 users.) > Maybe we could audit their darcs-all script and see where things could > go wrong? If it's a bash script, I could certainly look at that. BTW, Joey Hess has a different "do something on many repos" script in Debian which might be useful to snarf ideas from (though I think darcs-all is currently more powerful.) > We should keep in touch with them. [...] It may be good if somebody > would name himself the GHC liaison and work on this kind of stuff :-) +1. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
