Thomas Schilling:
Are you advocating for ease of use by new developers or for existing
developers? Current GHC hackers have to learn Git anyways and know
Darcs already. Library patches still have to be recorded separately,
so it would be a bit weird, but not much harder, really.
I am arguing for both. It would be more than weird. For example, if
you branch ghc, you usually need to branch the core libraries, too.
Doing that in two different vcs sounds like a mess to me.
Moreover, as I wrote a few times before, some reasons for switching in
the first place are invalidated by not having the core libraries in
git, too. For example, one complaint about darcs is that it either
doesn't build (on the Sun Solaris T1 and T2 machines) or is buggy (on
Mac OS with MacPorts), and hence people have trouble getting the
sources out of darcs in the first place. How is that going to be
addressed if some crucial code still needs to be obtained using darcs?
Manuel
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Manuel M T Chakravarty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Neil Mitchell:
If it really makes the life easier for people who are having lots of
VCS pain at the moment, then its hard to object. But many of the
comments in this discussion, about how everyone is going to flock to
GHC just as soon as it switches to Git, seem overly optimistic. I
think GHC is a few years off becoming drive-by hacker friendly, for
many other reasons.
It's not about becoming "drive-by hacker friendly". It is about not
becoming even less friendly as it is right now.
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
