My motivation for having a separate repository is that I can check it out and work on it without having to check out the whole GHC.
At the moment base and ghc-prim are used by the name-resolving compiler http://haskell-suite.github.io/haskell-names/ Roman * Simon Peyton-Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> [2013-06-10 07:42:19+0000] > I forget who said it, but it's true that we have uncritically assumed that > > * One package = one repository > But I now realise that there's no need for that. We could certainly have > one repo with multiple packages. > > What are the motivations for having a separate repository. Are these two the > main ones? > > * Sense of "ownership" by the maintainer. (My package isn't merely a > barnacle on the side of GHC.) > > * Ability to release new versions un-synchronised with GHC releases > > And neither really hold for the GHC-maintained packages. > > One merit of splitting up 'base' will be that a chunk of it can go in the > "independent" sector, leaving a smaller rump that is intimately coupled to > GHC. But we don't need to await that glorious day before getting on with the > debate this thread is so constructively having. > > Again: I am a non-expert. I will be happy to fall in with whatever you git > experts decide, provided (a) you have some measure of agreement that it's > step forward (b) you tell me clearly what my workflows should be. > > Simon > > From: ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On > Behalf Of John Lato > Sent: 10 June 2013 01:00 > To: Roman Cheplyaka > Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org > Subject: Re: Proposal: better library management ideas (was: how to checkout > proper submodules) > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Roman Cheplyaka > <r...@ro-che.info<mailto:r...@ro-che.info>> wrote: > > What I'm trying to say here is that there's hope for a portable base. > Maybe not in the form of split base - I don't know. > But it's the direction we should be moving anyways. > > And usurping base by GHC is a move in the opposite direction. > > Maybe that's a good thing? The current situation doesn't really seem to be > working. Keeping base separate negatively impacts workflow of GHC devs (as > evidenced by these threads), just to support something that other compilers > don't use anyway. Maybe it would be easier to fold base back into ghc and > try again, perhaps after some code cleanup? Having base in ghc may provide > more motivation to separate it properly. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
