On 06/05/2013 10:10 AM, David Terei wrote:
On 5 June 2013 01:43, Manuel M T Chakravarty <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree with Austin and Johan. It's a bizarre setup. Submodules have their
pain points (which we already have to deal with), but the ability to
properly snapshot and branch the whole tree would be a serious benefit IMO.
Manuel
PS: While we are at it, why don't we just have the main repos on GitHub
and use forks and pull requests like the rest of the world? (Using Git, but
not GitHub's superb infrastructure, seems like a terrible waste to me.)
I'd be all for this. We partially use the GitHub infrastructure since trac
broke and I changed the emails to point to GitHub instead. I also often do
code reviews with other devs on a personal GHC fork on github before
merging in.
I believe it would also help encourage more contributors (especially for
libraries) but others have expressed disagreement with this point of view
in the past and I'm not in hold of data.
As a very recent new (try-to-be-)contributor, i'ld like to weight in, in
favor of this.
IMHO, having to create a trac account, and submit patches by attachment
(with the confusing trac UI) instead of just pushing to some
repositories and
issuing pull requests is quite suboptimal.
I don't think it would scare anyone enough that they wouldn't
contribute, but
lowering the "entry cost" is always useful.
--
Vincent
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
