>Instead perhaps GitHub's new review system may be the way forward for GHC. It >allows you to easily use git in the way it's meant to be used.
Many problems are caused by letting your inner tinkerer/genius tailor dictate how things should be dealt with. Better to cut the gordian knot. I think Michael's right. On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Michael Sloan <mgsl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Eric Seidel <e...@seidel.io> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016, at 18:37, Ben Gamari wrote: >> > Moritz Angermann <mor...@lichtzwerge.de> writes: >> > >> > > All that arc essentially does is, compute the diff from an offset >> > > (e.g. master) to the current HEAD and upload that to a new or existing >> > > (--update) differential. It also adds some meta information about the >> > > range, such that arc patch supposedly knows into which commit to apply >> > > the patch to. >> > > >> > Sure, but this leads to generally unreviewable patches IMHO. In order to >> > stay sane I generally split up my work into a set of standalone patches >> > with git rebase and then create a Diff of each of these commits. >> > Phabricator supports this by having a notion of dependencies between >> > Diffs, but arcanist has no sensible scheme for taking a branch and >> > conveniently producing a series of Diffs. >> >> I completely understand how this would be frustrating for core >> contributors (more specifically for people submitting large patches), >> but for new or casual contributors it's actually quite freeing. I don't >> have to worry about how messy my local history gets, because arc will >> throw it all away regardless! It absolves me of an extra responsibility, >> and lowers the barrier to contributing. > > > I dislike this workflow because I am already used to doing a lot of git > rebasing / amending / auto squashing. So using arc means taking away my > ability to write multi commit stories of how the change was crafted. For > large changes there are often multiple logical inter related steps. > Squashing them into one big commit makes it much harder to review. I can > easily do that myself by marking everything as squash in a rebase. It feels > like arcanist is just taking away power, not giving it (note i have not used > it much - voice of a newbie here) > > I am beginning to change my feelings on this, away from thinking of GitHub > as an auxilliary source of didferentials. Instead perhaps GitHub's new > review system may be the way forward for GHC. It allows you to easily use > git in the way it's meant to be used. > > -Michael > >> >> >> It would be nice to support both workflows though :) >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> ghc-devs@haskell.org >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > -- Chris Allen Currently working on http://haskellbook.com _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
