On 2008 Aug 10, at 2:12, Jason Dagit wrote:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Maybe investing some time in fixing the most obvious darcs problems
would be a better solution?
We're working on that over at Darcs HQ, but there is no guarantee
that we'd come close to fixing the problems within the 4-5 week
window that Ian mentioned. Supposing that the main problems GHC has
with darcs 2 format get solved in the next month, would that give
GHC reason enough to keep using darcs? It seems many of you are
eager to use git; perhaps even if darcs was working to satisfaction.
Some people are. I'm more on the side of "are we creating a bigger
problem than we already have?" It's not at all clear to me that
switching to git would solve more problems than it would cause --- and
if you toss in core libraries possibly needing to stay in darcs, or
other projects being abruptly forced to switch to git because the core
libs did, it's pretty clearly on the "biting off more than we can
chew" side of things.
Let me throw out one more idea:
What if, as a GHC contributor, I could pick equally between git and
darcs? My understanding is that, while not optimal, you could use
tailor[1] to synchronize a darcs repository with a git one. Offer
up both repositories and keep them in sync. Let the masses decide?
There has been some discussion along those lines, but doing that
bidirectionally is logitically difficult.
--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
