Jason Dagit:
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.
People will be working on making darcs work better with the GHC repo
as a test case either way. And personally, since I'm not a GHC dev,
the decision doesn't affect my life. Having said that, I'm still
obviously biased. I'd love for darcs to work well enough that this
never came up.
Same here, and fwiw I won't change any of my many other darcs repos
any time soon.
However, as I have said before, if ghc is to switch, it must be a
clean switch, and no messy use of two vcs at the same time for ghc and
boot libs.
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?
I don't think that this technical feasible. I used tailor once to
convert a CVS repo to darcs, and while that was better than throwing
away the history, it was pretty messy and nothing that you would want
to do on a regular basis. Besides, even if the actual conversion
would work smoothly (which I strongly doubt), you'd immediately be
faced with problems of atomicity and associated race conditions of
commits to the two repos.
Manuel
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
