On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 02:16:25PM +1000, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote: > Duncan Coutts: > > > >I don't especially relish having to learn another vcs tool or raising > >the bar for contributions to Cabal either (we have lots of people who > >make small one-off contributions). > > I don't think it matters what vcs Cabal uses. GHC does already for a > while use a separate repo for its version of Cabal, and the GHC Cabal > repo needs to be explicitly updated to ensure that changes to Cabal do > not randomly break GHC. To be honest, if I had to say anything, I > would say that GHC has to uses fixed, stable versions of Cabal (like > it does of gmp). So, it really doesn't matter what vcs Cabal uses.
Unless we do get to a point where we are literally using tarballs[1] of Cabal, I don't think using a mixture of VCSs for Cabal is a good idea. Having to convert patches from one VCS format to the other sounds like a recipe for a lot of pain and suffering. [1] which I think is a bad idea anyway, as it makes it a lot more hassle to fix Cabal bugs that GHC+bootlibs expose. Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
