On 29 Mar 2009, at 22:26, Xiao-Yong Jin wrote:
Peter Verswyvelen <bugf...@gmail.com> writes:
Mmm, my email was indeed very unclear about my question.
A very simple example: suppose a development team is working on a
program.
This program consist of modules A and B. Each module has it's own
Darcs
repository.
Module A requires B. When a new developer wants to get the source
code, he
does a "darcs get server://program/A", which gives him only the
latest version
of A. So he manually needs to do "darcs get server://program/
B" (that B is
required is usually discovered after a compilation error, talking
to other
developers to find out what the dependencies are, or by reading the
cabal
file). Furthermore it is unclear which version of A required which
version of
B (so you can't really roll back to old versions).
Now assume you don't have 2 modules but dozens...
I can't imagine such kind of situation, unless you are
really working on a very big project.
Really? To me it's almost the way darcs is *meant* to work. Both
darcs and cabal work well when you work with micropackages, not one
monolithic thing. What Peter is suggesting would make darcs hugely
better for dealing with lots of micropackages at the same time that
all go together to form a project.
If those aforementioned dependency projects are just some
modules within your big projects, I think the way to go is
actually make them in the same repository.
Really? Why should we make a monolithic blob out of what are really
completely separate things that can be reused in completely separate
places?
I can't see the
benefit of splitting those small modules to different
repositories, apart from not letting other people know your
current developing code.
As above – they're different packages, that do something different,
and can be used in many different places. It's pure coincidence that
those packages were first needed for this particular project.
So my point of view is that it is a management issue rather
than a issue of revision control system. The developers
should actually agree upon a proper set of API's before you
guys actually start building the modules separately.
I don't agree. If it were stable APIs developed by someone else, then
yes, it would make sense, but with packages that are built side-by-
side with the rest of the project, but are logically distinct, it
makes very little sense.
Bob_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
