On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Eric Kow wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 22:24:42 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
The immediate question, of course, is what we should do for 2.5, but
I think the arguments above apply at whatever time, the only
question is of the relative balance between urgency and risk.
What are the benefits of having witnesses enabled in branch-2.5
(as opposed to say the HEAD branch as soon as possible?) Is it
mainly that Darcs ecosystem authors can target something stable
with witnesses as soon as possible?
Well, FSVO "stable" :-)
In March, there were three or four people using the darcs library, a
veritable explosion :-). With at least two of them, questions about things
like filtering lists arose. Things have gone a bit more quiet again
since then, but I do feel that nipping any dangerous usage in the bud is
a good thing.
Just seeing if this code making it to stable is itself urgent
or if by urgency we're mostly just talking about Darcs hackers.
In my view, there is some urgency in it getting into stable for
the library. For the executable, changing HEAD is fine.
I remember that in the early days, I advocated a very slow approach to
switching from make to Cabal, which I now think of as being a mistake.
Don't know if it's the same situation here, but it seems like there are
certain kinds of work where delays cause way too much pain to be
worthwhile (particular in the Cabal case, where we were maintaining
two separate tracks of work)... so stuff like this makes me nuance my
general slowly-slowly attitude.
I think once we get to the point of removing the CPP, we'll see
maintenance benefits, but that's still a little way off.
Ganesh
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
darcs-users@darcs.net
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
