+1 re upgrading trac. On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:11 PM, David Terei <[email protected]> wrote: > If we are migrating the GHC trac would it also be possible to upgrade > it to 1.0? The current version 0.11.6 is fairly old now and 1.0 > contains a few improvements that would be nice. (e.g., support for > multiple git repos so we could see patches to libraries as well). > > Cheers, > David. > > On 29 January 2013 09:39, Ian Lynagh <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 09:19:36AM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: >>> | The discussion about replacing abbot seems to be achieving consensus. >>> | There's no urgency, but if it seems to taper out again then I'll try >>> | prodding the committee to put the plan into action. >>> >>> What *is* the consensus? >> >> To get a Hetzner server, and run a bunch of VMs on it for the different >> services. >> >> I think everyone's agreed on that, but there's some discussion about how >> best to handle backups. >> >>> We should get on with this. It bit several times recently, and we don't >>> want to wait until it becomes really serious! (And it looks bad.) >> >> Replacing abbot isn't related to the recent problems with abbot. We want >> to replace it because the hardware is a few years old and out of >> warranty, but the recent problems were software issues and would >> probably affect the replacement in the same way. >> >> >> Thanks >> Ian >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
