Great! A submodule makes a lot more sense to me, at least short term. I would hope that medium term the development processes of GHC-as-a-whole and Hadrian(-a-part-of-GHC) can converge, so that a submodule is no longer necessary. Submodules do have their downsides and it would be odd for such a core part as the build system to be kept external to the main repo.
-- Mathieu Boespflug Founder at http://tweag.io. On 8 December 2017 at 20:10, Ara Adkins <m...@ara.io> wrote: > Sounds good! Hopefully this doesn’t cause a flood of commit messages. > > _ara > > > On 8 Dec 2017, at 18:50, Ben Gamari <b...@well-typed.com> wrote: > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > A bit over a month ago we merged hadrian into the ghc tree as a subtree. > > Unfortunately, those working on Hadrian have found the subtree mechanism > > to provide a rather poor developer experience. Consequently, today I > > will be ripping out the subtree and replacing it with a submodule. > > > > After pulling the commit performing this change you will likely need to > > do the following to emplace the new submodule, > > > > $ git submodule update --init > > $ git -C hadrian checkout . > > > > Cheers, > > > > - Ben > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
