I added this material to the wiki:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/WorkingConventions
If anyone has any more suggestions for the checkin policy, please let us
know.
Cheers,
Simon
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> Ian Lynagh wrote:
>> I think it would be a nice requirement that for a test to be marked
>> as expected-to-fail there must be an open bug about it.
>
> That'd be great.
>
>>> 2. What are the checkin policies. I could not find anything on the
>>> wiki.
>>
>> I would say:
>>
>> * Try not to break anything
>>
>> * Discuss anything you think might be controversial before pushing it
>>
>> If you do end up breaking the build then it's not the end of the
>> world, though, so don't sweat about it too much. History shows that
>> even people called Simon are not immune from doing so!
>
> I'd add:
>
> * Try to make small patches (ie, work in consistent increments).
> * Push often.
>
>>> 2(b). How does someone get a stable HEAD-ish build? Are the dates or
>>> tags?
>>
>> I tend to wait for a night when the nightly builds go through cleanly
>> and update then.
>
> It might make sense to tag the trees on those occasions, so
> that people
> who don't follow the cvs list closely still have a good chance of
> picking the most recent good patch set.
>
> Manuel
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
