Yitzchak Gale wrote: > Eric Kow wrote: >> ...under what >> circumstances would Debian stable users need to *compile* (as opposed >> to fetching a binary) *new* versions of Darcs? >> For the new bit, I think it would be if we were ever to release a >> version of Darcs that fixed some crucial bug (say a pending patch >> issue). > > What if there is a new feature or functionality that I happen to need > that is still only in HEAD? That has happened in the past.
That's qualitatively different from the basic requirement of being able to get at your data, isn't it? > It has also happened that I wanted to experiment with something. > So I darcs get HEAD, compile, and hack. > > If my platform required some particular older tag or branch to > compile, and there were some reliable easy way to find an always > up-to-date source of clear instructions how to do that, I suppose > that would do. It would feel unfriendly though. Well, that would just be a sufficiently old release. Releases are tagged too. We could list what releases supported what platforms to satisfy the "instructions" bit of that. > If the darcs team decides to disqualify everyone using Debian stable > and equivalent from contributing to darcs, that of course is up to > you. I personally have unfortunately not had the time to contribute > so far *blushes*. Again, this is moving rather beyond being able to get darcs at all for your platform. I'd also point out that if you were to develop with GHC 6.8 then any change you sent in could potentially break GHC 6.12, just as my changes made on 6.12 have recently broken 6.8. In other words whatever the range of GHC releases we support, there is something of a need for developers to actually test with those releases, at least when making changes where there is a substantial risk of breaking things. To some extent the buildbots help with this, but once they flag a problem it's still a burden for someone to identify and fix that problem. > The bottom line is: there are Linux users and developers (me one of > them) who use Debian stable quite heavily. For us, a policy like that > would work to keep our data accessible, with some small amount of > inconvenience, and with a loss of some of the open-source feel of > darcs. I'd be interested to know whether development on stable is commonplace. It feels like a somewhat unnatural thing to do to me, but obviously it's not for you :-) Cheers, Ganesh =============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html =============================================================================== _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
