As everyone has been saying, the primary issue is the workflow of the main contributors and the cost of the transition.
However, I made the transition to Git and GitHub earlier this year and that initial investment has been repaid handsomely (it’s the first system I have felt truly comfortable with). I suspect a transition to Git would work out well in the long run and make the GHC sources more accessible. Chris From: glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Peebles Sent: 10 January 2011 15:40 To: Simon Marlow Cc: GHC CVS list; glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org Subject: Re: RFC: migrating to git I fully support this (especially if it lived on github), but we should probably sort the top contributors to GHC in the past year or so and consider their opinions on the matter in that order :) I certainly would not be on that list. A git(hub)-based workflow would however facilitate any minor contributions I might make (and I'd imagine those of many others). Dan On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com> wrote: It's time to consider again whether we should migrate GHC development from darcs to (probably) git. >From our perspective at GHC HQ, the biggest problem that we would hope to >solve by switching is that darcs makes branching and merging very difficult >for us. We have a few branches of HEAD that are very painful to keep merged >with HEAD, and we would almost certainly have more branches if the overhead >were lower. In some sense the overhead is self-inflicted because we have the >no-conflict policy in the mainline repository, but that is to avoid problems >with darcs' merging algorithms (both performance and correctness). We are >still using darcs v1 patches rather than v2, but there are known problems with >v2 which are preventing us from upgrading. The darcs team have been making great strides with performance, but conflict handling remains a serious problem. The darcs roadmap doesn't show this being fixed in the near future http://wiki.darcs.net/Roadmap Rebase support is coming, and it does work, though the workflow is a bit laborious. Besides the branching/merging/conflict issue, switching to git would give us plenty of side benefits, notably via access to a wealth of tool support. Making contribution easy is important to us too, and there are a lot of people using git. The cost of switching is quite high, which is one reason we decided to stay with darcs last time. We have multiple repos that need to be converted, and for some of them, where the repo is being shared with other projects, we may have to mirror rather than convert in place. We're prepared to put in the effort if the gains would be worthwhile though (offers of help are more than welcome!). We're intrested in opinions from both active and potential GHC developers/contributors. Let us know what you think - would this make life harder or easier for you? Would it make you less likely or more likely to contribute? Cheers, Simon _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list cvs-...@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3370 - Release Date: 01/09/11
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
