Duncan Coutts wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:simonmarhaskell:Don Stewart wrote:We don't want to impose such a burdensome regime - the rule is, if you've run validate then you're off the hook. For the Cabal folks we've even forked Cabal so that the developers don't have to validate at all, and we could consider doing that for other libraries too.dons:simonpj:In bytestring package, Data.Char8 doesn't even get past the parser. What's going on with bytestring?Looks like the last patch added a ',' to the end of a line, which was silently accepted by 6.6.1 which Duncan uses, but failed with the head (which I use). Patch applied.Raises an interesting issue that library maintainers need to check against 2 or 3 different ghc versions for each patch. Hmm.We forked bytestring during the hackathon too. So the head branch on darcs.haskell.org is now the de facto stable branch, since GHC uses it.If we're doing this we should be consistent about it. ie where the head should go, where the other branches should go. Here's Cabal's layout at the moment: Cabal HEAD: d.h.o/cabal ghc HEAD branch of Cabal: d.h.o/packages/Cabal ghc-6.8 branch of Cabal: d.h.o/ghc-6.8/packages/Cabal
It would make more sense to have the ghc HEAD branch of Cabal in d.h.o/ghc/packages/Cabaland similarly for any other packages that we fork, to make it clear that these packages are "part of GHC" in a sense. And that would be more consistent with what we do for the ghc branches too.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
