It seems a shame that it would be so difficult to maintain a separate GHC branch. Having no long-term branches myself, I haven't yet felt the pain, but reading this email chain I am rather discouraged from attempting it.
It makes sense to me to have tool support for branching and merging in a large open source project like GHC and doing so could increase the number of people interested in maintaining active branches. I would certainly support a move to git. P.S. Apparently Linus used to use Lennart's method of diff and patch for version control before switching to bitkeeper and then git: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 about 10:30 minutes in. I guess it's a sign of a true hacker :) On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Max Bolingbroke wrote: > Hi, > > On 6 December 2010 01:57, Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I am doing some work on a GHC branch and I am having a lot of troubles >> (and spending a lot of time) trying to keep my branch up to date with HEAD, >> so I would be very grateful for any suggestions by fellow developers of how >> I might improve the process. > > Unfortunately I don't have any useful advice on how to avoid the > problem. I've found exactly the same issues for every GHC branch I've > ever developed, but haven't found a nice workaround. > > I'd really like to see some solution though. Back in the day this is > the reason that I pushed for moving GHC to Git (though that process > sort of ran out of steam), and I still think that would be a good > move, but any sort of solution would be good. > > Cheers, > Max > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
