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
On 10 January 2011 11:19, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Well, as a sometime-contributor I would certainly be happier hacking
on GHC if it were git
On 10/01/2011 13:02, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
On 10 January 2011 11:19, Simon Marlowmarlo...@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Well, as a sometime-contributor I would
Please please consider Mercurial if migration from darcs is inevitable :)
P.
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Max Bolingbroke
batterseapo...@hotmail.com wrote:
Naturally other workflows are possible and I'm sure other list members
will chime in with their own favourites :-)
Here's the flow I use:
http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
with the
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Pavel Perikov peri...@gmail.com wrote:
Please please consider Mercurial if migration from darcs is inevitable :)
While Mercurial is a fine choice, I think there are more Haskellers
that use Git than Mercurial. Probably because GitHub is such an
awesome service.
On 10.01.2011, at 16:40, Johan Tibell wrote:
While Mercurial is a fine choice, I think there are more Haskellers
that use Git than Mercurial. Probably because GitHub is such an
awesome service.
Interesting. It will be great to see any numbers (really, just curious).
bitbucket seems to be ok
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 01:27:17PM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 10/01/2011 13:02, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
2) There was also concern that Git isn't so great on Windows. I have
heard that this is less of an issue now, but I never personally
suffered from any problems, so can't be sure. (FWIW I
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
On Mon, Jan 10 2011, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
2) There was also concern that Git isn't so great on Windows. I have
heard that this is less of an issue now, but I never personally
suffered from any problems, so can't be sure. (FWIW I used Git on
Windows industrially ~1 year ago for 3 months and
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Pavel Perikov peri...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10.01.2011, at 16:40, Johan Tibell wrote:
While Mercurial is a fine choice, I think there are more Haskellers
that use Git than Mercurial. Probably because GitHub is such an
awesome service.
Interesting. It will be
On 10.01.2011, at 18:59, Johan Tibell wrote:
I've just observed what other Haskellers talk about
and where I usually find projects (when they are not in Darcs). We
could probably pull the numbers of Hackage.
Probably most valuable are the opinions of GHC development team of course :)
Git
Am 10.01.2011 14:02, schrieb Max Bolingbroke:
2) There was also concern that Git isn't so great on Windows. I have
heard that this is less of an issue now, but I never personally
suffered from any problems, so can't be sure. (FWIW I used Git on
Windows industrially ~1 year ago for 3 months and
I'd be for a move, but haven't contributed much lately. I use Git for
all my personal projects, so I consider Git to be useful. I
personally find sending patches via Git to be harder than with Darcs,
but if we use Github the pull-request-based model should work well.
I used Git on Windows two
On 10.01.2011, at 19:29, Johan Tibell wrote:
I'm
not trying to get into a Git vs Mercurial argument here. I have more
important things to do, like writing code. :)
Absolutely true :)
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
On 2011-01-10 16:39, Daniel Peebles wrote:
(especially if it lived on github)
Even if GitHub is used you should probably arrange some other kind of
backup solution, because GitHub reserves the right to delete your
repository for any reason at any time (http://help.github.com/terms/).
--
/NAD
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Nils Anders Danielsson
n...@cs.nott.ac.uk wrote:
Even if GitHub is used you should probably arrange some other kind of
backup solution, because GitHub reserves the right to delete your
repository for any reason at any time (http://help.github.com/terms/).
If
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
On 10 Jan 2011, at 14:02, Gregory Collins wrote:
+1. I don't have a lot of skin in this particular game (I'm not
currently a GHC contributor and am unlikely to become one in the near
future), but I can offer some anecdotal evidence:
As another non-GHC contributor, my opinion should probably
Hi,
I need to be able to take a piece of Haskell source code and get an simplified,
typed, intermediate representation of the AST, which means I need to use
compiler/coreSyn/CoreSyn.lhs
So I'm first trying to get the desguaredModule of the source code with
...
modSum -
Hi,
I need to be able to take a piece of Haskell source code and get an simplified,
typed, intermediate representation of the AST, which means I need to use
compiler/coreSyn/CoreSyn.lhs
So I'm first trying to get the desguaredModule of the source code with
...
modSum -
It's time to consider again whether we should migrate GHC development
from darcs to (probably) git.
I'd be thrilled to see GHC migrate to git, and I'd be much more likely
to make new contributions to the back end.
The rest of this email contains observations about my own experience
with
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:47:43PM -0500, Norman Ramsey wrote:
My workflow has never involved much cherry-picking, and I tried
revising history ('rebasing') once and didn't like it. But I use
git's cheap branching and merging workflow *very* heavily.
Do you mean you've used this to do
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 01:27:17PM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
I don't think the dependencies get very deep in most cases, and my
impression is that we often don't want to pull the dependencies anyway,
so darcs forces us to merge the patch manually (Ian would be able to say
for sure how
I am very interested in contributing to GHC, though the state of
development with darcs makes me hesitate. A switch to git would make
contribution to the project much easier.
--trevor
On 01/10/2011 03:19 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
It's time to consider again whether we should migrate GHC
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 01:27:17PM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
It would be a prerequisite to switching that a GHC developer only has to
use one VCS. So we either migrate dependencies to git, or mirror them
in GHC-specific git branches.
I think it's hard to know how well it's going to work
Hello,
I have been working on a GHC branch for the last few months and, for me,
switching to git would be a win because I find it quite difficult to keep my
branch and HEAD synchronized. I allocate about a day, probably about once a
month, to redo my repository so that it is in sync with HEAD.
On 10/01/2011, at 13:27, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 10/01/2011 13:02, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
However, I remember the last time this came up there were some issues
that might make migration painful. From the top of my head:
1) Some people expressed concern that they would have to use two
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Pavel Perikov peri...@gmail.com wrote:
Please please consider Mercurial if migration from darcs is inevitable :)
For what it's worth, Mercurial generally interoperates quite well with git
and github, using the hg-git plugin. As a longtime Mercurial user and an
As another non-GHC contributor, my opinion should probably also count for
little, but my experience with git has been poor.
I have used git daily in my job for the last year. Like Simon PJ, I
struggle to understand the underlying model of git, despite reading quite a
few tutorials. I have
On 01/10/2011 08:52 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
If I were considering contributing minor patches to a project, the use
of git would probably not deter me too much - I can cope with the
simple stuff. But if I wanted more major involvement, git would
definitely cause me to think twice about
So the basic point seems to be: if you know how to use a tool, you don't
usually curse and swear when you use it. If you don't, you tend to swear a
lot!
:)
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Adam Wick aw...@galois.com wrote:
On 01/10/2011 08:52 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
If I were considering
I just want to point out that since the last discussion we collected
some migration advice at
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/GitForDarcsUsers
Some of it may be untested (or wrong), but it should be a good starting point.
On 10 January 2011 22:15, Neil Mitchell ndmitch...@gmail.com
On Jan 10, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
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?
+1 for moving
I'm inclined to vote +1 for a move to git. JP and I seem to collaborate just
fine using github for EclipseFP and scion, FWIW. I tend to develop on ad hoc
branches before I merge changes back onto the master branch.
I can't say that either of us have run into significant problems, although I
did
On 10 January 2011 22:19, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
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?
I
I agree with Roman's position. I would prefer to stay with darcs (it has its
advantages and disadvantages, but has definitely been improving much in the
past).
In any case, all of GHC including all dependencies must be available and
patchable with a *single* VCS. Mixing VCS' will lead to
I'm not sure if your statement regarding the decoupling between contributors
and VCSes holds water. The VCS is definitely a factor, but certainly not the
only one. I've been demotivated by VCSes before and it has directly impacted
whether I continued my involvement. Granted that the VCS was
39 matches
Mail list logo
