On 11 Aug 2008, at 13:00, Duncan Coutts wrote:
It's not clear to me that we've really bothered to find out. The last evaluation in relation to ghc that I'm aware of was prior to the 2.0 release. My impression is that we've all complained about the darcs v1 problems (justly) but spent the most effort investigating things otherthan darcs v2 which would be the easiest to upgrade to and not have theproblems of using two different systems for ghc vs other libs.
I converted the ghc repo to darcs2 (locally): Getting file local history: * darcs changes --last 20 compiler/main/HscTypes.lhs very quick but prints only two patches * darcs changes compiler/hsSyn/HsTypes.lhs 1m22s (16s for the second time) Git <1s * darcs get ghc2 ghc-test (creating a *local* branch) real 13m25.365s user 0m14.677s sys 0m29.541s (at least it seems it actually worked, though) git clone ghc g2 (the slow method of creating a local branch) real 0m6.742s user 0m0.335s sys 0m0.652s* I haven't tested a remote pull yet. At 80 Kb/s, it should take about 15min to clone via Git (70 MB). A test of darcs would be interesting.
Finally, of course, we have to hope that Darcs2's conflict problems are actually solved. I also had some weird automerges with Darcs when pulling from Max' repository, so Darcs isn't flawless there, either (this seemed to be one of the main critiques of Git).
/ Thomas --Awareness is the enemy of sanity, for once you hear the screaming, it never stops.
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
