On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 03:25:40PM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> - How much effort it is to switch, i.e. we need to list the things
> that would have to change
We'd have to change the buildbot script, but that ought to be trivial
(assuming the replacement is supported by buildbot, which Mercurial and
Git are by the looks of it).
> What should we consider as alternatives? At least Mercurial and git, I
> would think. Any others? I think we should only consider distributed VCs.
Can someone familiar with the alternatives please give the equivalent
for these commands in them?
# Make a repo with a single file with lines 1,3,5,7 in
mkdir repo1
cd repo1
darcs init
printf 'Line1\nLine3\nLine5\nLine7\n' > file
darcs record --all --look-for-adds -m patch1 -A [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cd ..
# Check out 2 copies of the repo
darcs get repo1 repo2
darcs get repo1 repo3
# Add a patch that adds lines 2 and 6, then another that adds line 4
cd repo1
printf 'Line1\nLine2\nLine3\nLine5\nLine6\nLine7\n' > file
darcs record --all -m patch2
printf 'Line1\nLine2\nLine3\nLine4\nLine5\nLine6\nLine7\n' > file
darcs record --all -m patch3
# Pull the line 4 patch, but not the lines 2 and 6 patch, into the
# other repos non-interactively and interactively
cd ../repo2
darcs pull --all --patches patch3
cd ../repo3
darcs pull
n
y
# repo2's and repo3's file now contains lines 1,3,4,5,7
> are you violently opposed/in favour of switching?
>
> ---
>
> I should say a little about how *I* feel about darcs. I've grown to love
> cherry-picking and one-command merging, when it works. I'd be loathe to
> lose the ability to commit/revert a subset of the changes in a tree or file
> (I use emacs' darcsum mode). I love the fact that I can unrecord/re-record
> patches.
>
> We do need merging to work, though.
I basically agree with all that, and I love darcs too. Neil's point
about community consistency is a good one too, I think.
Overall I'm in favour of sticking, although not violently. I haven't
tried any of the distributed alternatives though, so I'm not sure how
useful that opinion is :-)
> I would like it if it were possible to cherry-pick a patch without its
> dependencies, resulting in a conflict that needs to be resolved, in a way
> that works nicely if you happen to pull the dependencies later too.
Ug. Intuitively the resolution patch conflicts with the actual
dependencies. That sounds a little scary.
Thanks
Ian
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
