Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Our current plan (were you in the loop when we discussed this?) is to have a snapshot darcs repo, that is the last known clean build. (Question: do we need one per architecture?)
Definitely one per architecture (and there doesn't seem to be a nightly build for OS X at the moment). But see below...
If you had that, you'd be happy, right?
Actually, I probably wouldn't. For instance, I only wanted to sync today to get your latest simplifier patches. Of course, I could have pulled only those but just pulling everything is much easier. And then there is the question of getting the right versions of libraries...
You could just pull from that. You wouldn't get the latest patches -- but you can't *both* have the latest patches *and* a known good build.
To be entirely honest, I don't see why I can't have both most of the time (I wouldn't mind too much if head was broken *occasionally*). I think simply testing potentially destabilising patches on multiple architectures before submitting/pushing them and clearly stating what has/hasn't been tested when submitting would go a long way towards that. For projects like the dynamic linking stuff, where testing probably happens gradually, a branch would perhaps be more appropriate. It does work (not perfectly, but definitely better) for other projects. Perhaps ghc has reached a threshold in the number of developers where a more controlled patch submission/application process is required.
Roman _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
