Re: git and sync-all: Why not merge in libraries?

2008-08-07 Thread Malcolm Wallace

With the upcoming switchover to git, has any thought gone into merging
in the libraries into the main ghc tree


The libraries are going to remain under darcs, because they are shared  
with other haskell compilers.


Regards,
Malcolm

___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users


git and sync-all: Why not merge in libraries?

2008-08-07 Thread Bryan Donlan
Hi all,

With the upcoming switchover to git, has any thought gone into merging
in the libraries into the main ghc tree (eliminating the need for a
'git-all')? git can merge two histories with no common ancestor, so no
history would be lost - though you'd have to ask greater gurus than I
the proper procedure. It's been done a few times on git itself to fold
in externally developed tools.

As I understand it, you could even continue development of the
libraries on a seperate tree, as long as you don't try merging changes
on ghc.git to $library.git, unless you filter out the GHC-only changes
first somehow (merging $library.git back into ghc.git, as I understand
it, should work...).

Not sure if I'm missing something here, or if it's impractical for
some reason...

Thanks,

Bryan Donlan
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users