duncan.coutts: > 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.
As long as we have a head and stable branch. I don't want to validate any time we make a change to bytestring, only when merging. -- Don _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
