On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 14:14 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > > 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/Cabal > > and 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.
Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Then we have to decide where to put the HEAD branch for these packages. Non-core package should probable migrate over time to code.haskell.org but I'm less convinced about moving core packages like Cabal and bytestring. Don, what do you think? How about we keep bytestring on darcs.h.o and only move binary etc to code.h.o. Duncan _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
