chak:
> Simon Marlow wrote,
> >Personally, I think requiring a complete bootstrap/testsuite on two
> >platforms for every patch is still prohibitively expensive: up to 2
> >hours for each build plus the time and effort to set them up - that's if
> >you even have access to 2 different platforms. If the developer doesn't
> >have 2 platforms, then we have to do the testing. What's the easiest
> >way to get the testing done? Push the patch, and let buildbot do it.
> >This is why I think the staging/tested repositories suit our needs better.
>
> I think its a matter of scalability. The "testing by pushing to head"
> approach that you seem to advocate worked well enough when few people were
> hacking GHC. However, it seems that the number of GHC developers has been
> growing quite a bit in recent times - this includes an extension of the
Yes, it looks like there's been a sustained period of hacking since this
time last year:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/images/commits/community/ghc-commits.png
The most active the ghc tree has been since '02.
> core team (ie, Igloo), contributions from SoC, etc. With more patches to
> the head and more changes to core infrastructure, the head breaks more
> frequently. As a result, more and more people waste their time with a
> broken head. Even if we have the "guaranteed to be buildable" snapshots,
> there is an overhead in trying the head, discovering it is broken, and
> moving to a snapshot.
We could follow the OpenBSD route: if you break the tree, you get
publically shamed, and your commit bits revoked. That tends to keep
things stable ;)
-- Don
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
