I have tried to gather the ideas from this thread into a formal proposal: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/11
Please feel free to make suggestions to improve this, especially if I've captured anyone's contributions incorrectly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Richard A. Eisenberg Asst. Prof. of Computer Science Bryn Mawr College Bryn Mawr, PA, USA cs.brynmawr.edu/~rae > On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:20 AM, Christopher Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Eric Seidel <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016, at 18:37, Ben Gamari wrote: >>>> Moritz Angermann <[email protected]> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >> > > > > -- > Chris Allen > Currently working on http://haskellbook.com > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
