I guess an apology is in order from yours truly for having my
hard-drive going bad before getting around to pushing this
back onto HEAD & leaving it to Ian to clean up (thanks!)
Won't happen again...I hope :)
I also hope that Simon's offer isn't totally serious..
--sigbjorn
Simon Marlow wrote:
Sven Panne wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 15. November 2006 14:30 schrieb Ian Lynagh:
[...]
It has been in the 6.6 branch since 16 Oct, but has only just entered
the HEAD. [...]
The direction of merging is a little bit chaotic in recent times
IMHO. In good old CVS days we had the rule that changes from the HEAD
should be pushed to the branches where appropriate, not the other way
round. It would be good if we used this rule again IHMO, as it makes
tracking things easier (by humans, at least).
I don't feel terribly strongly about this, but the reason I've
committed fixes to 6.6 sometimes is that (a) its sometimes more
convenient, if I have an up to date 6.6 tree to test on, and (b) it's
easy to see which patches are in 6.6 and not the HEAD, but we can't do
that in the other direction. So we'll never forget to merge a patch
from 6.6 into HEAD, but we will almost certainly forget to merge in
the other direction.
So I'll leave this up to Ian as the caretaker of the 6.6 branch. I'm
happy to stop pushing new patches to 6.6 if that's what folk would
prefer.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
