Good morning, Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 19:18 -0600 schrieb Austin Seipp: > Disregard all this, upon closer inspection I see you only wanted > ./validate anyway.* :) > > * But it still will hurt more when you add in low-powered builders.
right, I did not want to highjack the thread with my wishlist. And even then I would not want low-powered builders, but rather one strong, “most typical” setup. I think it would already by a big win if we ensured statically (heh) that every change to master has been validated completely once somewhere. And if for changes like the one I liked (removing dead code), as a developer I don’t have to laboriously enforce this invariant (which I obviously then didn’t do), but can rely on the safety nets of the infrastructure. Greetings, Joachim PS: I’m subscribed to the list, no need to mail me personally. -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner [email protected] • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Jabber: [email protected] • GPG-Key: 0x4743206C Debian Developer: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
