+1 from me as well.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:31 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> It seems to me, there were no major obstacles left unaddressed in the
> previous discussion[1] (see summary below) to merging testsuite.git into
> ghc.git.
>
> So here's one last attempt to get test
hc-devs
> | Subject: Folding ghc/testsuite repos *now*, 2nd attempt (was: Repository
> | Reorganization Question)
> |
> | Hello All,
> |
> | It seems to me, there were no major obstacles left unaddressed in the
> | previous discussion[1] (see summary below) to merging testsuite.git
I'm all for it!
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of
| Herbert Valerio Riedel
| Sent: 09 January 2014 10:31
| To: ghc-devs
| Subject: Folding ghc/testsuite repos *now*, 2nd attempt (was: Repository
| Reorganization Que
Hello All,
It seems to me, there were no major obstacles left unaddressed in the
previous discussion[1] (see summary below) to merging testsuite.git into
ghc.git.
So here's one last attempt to get testsuite.git folded into ghc.git before
Austin branches off 7.8
Please speak up *now*, if you hav
I don't feel terribly strongly about this, but I'd rather not clutter up
the commit messages. As long as we keep the old testsuite.git
repository attached to Trac, we can always find the old commits, and
Google is a good hash table for SHA-1 keys.
Cheers,
Simon
On 10/12/2013 21:42, Herbert V
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 10.12.2013, 22:42 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio Riedel:
> So if we want it that way, it's easily accomplished...
yes, looks good.
Make sure that when you merge master, you are not adding new comments to
all the tickets references from commit messages...
Greetings,
Joachim
Hi Ben,
On 2013-12-10 at 17:53:23 +0100, Ben Gamari wrote:
> If the old commit IDs are really needed, one would think it wouldn't be
> too hard to write them into the commit message while rewriting
> history. That way you could at least `git log --grep` IIRC.
Good idea, that's quite easy actually
Herbert Valerio Riedel writes:
> On 2013-12-09 at 13:31:15 +0100, Austin Seipp wrote:
>> It seems that while most people are in favor of migrating and
>> preserving the history there are a few sticky bits concerning some of
>> the minor details. So I think the discussion should continue, but we
>
On 2013-12-09 at 13:31:15 +0100, Austin Seipp wrote:
> It seems that while most people are in favor of migrating and
> preserving the history there are a few sticky bits concerning some of
> the minor details. So I think the discussion should continue, but we
> clearly shouldn't pull the trigger qu
Hi all,
It seems that while most people are in favor of migrating and
preserving the history there are a few sticky bits concerning some of
the minor details. So I think the discussion should continue, but we
clearly shouldn't pull the trigger quite yet. testsuite etc will live
on for a while long
On 09/12/2013 09:28, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am Montag, den 09.12.2013, 09:23 + schrieb Simon Marlow:
I'm confused. We definitely do have clickable commit links, inserted
automatically by the post-commit hook, e.g.:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8577#comment:21
Those links
Hi,
Am Montag, den 09.12.2013, 09:23 + schrieb Simon Marlow:
> I'm confused. We definitely do have clickable commit links, inserted
> automatically by the post-commit hook, e.g.:
>
> https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8577#comment:21
>
> Those links would break if the hashes change, r
On 09/12/2013 08:24, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
On 2013-12-09 at 09:18:09 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
[...]
...as I hinted at in an earlier post, the old commit-ids will still
allow to find the original commit; for isntance, there's already the
find-commit-by-sha1 service at
http://git.
Hi,
Am Montag, den 09.12.2013, 10:04 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio Riedel:
> > But in contrast to the mailing list link issue, even if we rewrite the
> > testsuite before merging, it will be possible, although a bit more
> > tedious, to look up the corresponding new hash.
>
> What I don't underst
On 2013-12-09 at 09:34:23 +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Montag, den 09.12.2013, 09:24 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio Riedel:
>> What kind of links are you referring to btw? I don't see any clickable
>> GHC SHA1 ids these days anymore... :-)
>
> well, people do write SHA1 ids in tickets comment
Hi,
Am Montag, den 09.12.2013, 09:24 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio Riedel:
> What kind of links are you referring to btw? I don't see any clickable
> GHC SHA1 ids these days anymore... :-)
well, people do write SHA1 ids in tickets comments directly. (At least I
do. And then I rebase my branch. An
On 2013-12-09 at 09:18:09 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
[...]
>> ...as I hinted at in an earlier post, the old commit-ids will still
>> allow to find the original commit; for isntance, there's already the
>> find-commit-by-sha1 service at
>>
>>http://git.haskell.org/.findhash/
>>
>> which search
On 06/12/2013 15:43, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> On 2013-12-06 at 13:50:55 +0100, Johan Tibell wrote:
>> Whichever way to go, we should write down the options and
consequences and
>> communicating them widely enough so no core devs get surprised.
>>
>> Commit IDs for the test suite are refer
20MB of bandwidth represents 20 additional seconds to do an initial
clone on my 1 megabyte/second connection. ghc.git is already about
75MB, so it wouldn't dramatically change the experience either way.
Just a data point.
On 12/06/2013 12:47 PM, Carter Schonwald wrote:
personally i don't car
personally i don't care about the bandwidth, and others are correct about
the value of logs. If theres a way to get both, awesome! If not, 20mb here
and there i don't care.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
>
>>
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> On 2013-12-06 at 13:50:55 +0100, Johan Tibell wrote:
> > Whichever way to go, we should write down the options and consequences
> and
> > communicating them widely enough so no core devs get surprised.
> >
> > Commit IDs for the test
On 2013-12-06 at 13:50:55 +0100, Johan Tibell wrote:
> Whichever way to go, we should write down the options and consequences and
> communicating them widely enough so no core devs get surprised.
>
> Commit IDs for the test suite are referenced in e.g. various Trac issues,
> on mailing lists (altho
My only concern with this is that we consider the workflow and tooling
issues that I outlined in
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.ghc.devel/2718
The main points are making sure the workflow for submodules doesn't have
too much friction, that it's integrated nicely into sync-a
Trac tickets with links to commits are the important case. If the
commit IDs change, someone will have to run a script over the Trac
database and rewrite all those links to testsuite commits to the new
ones. Sounds possible, but it'll be at least a few hours work I'd guess.
I'm in favour of
Whichever way to go, we should write down the options and consequences and
communicating them widely enough so no core devs get surprised.
Commit IDs for the test suite are referenced in e.g. various Trac issues,
on mailing lists (although rarely), and perhaps even in code.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 a
On 2013-12-06 at 13:01:41 +0100, Johan Tibell wrote:
> When we merge in the testsuite repo, can we still keep the old commit IDs?
> They're referenced from all over the place.
...if we want to preserve the old testsuite's commit-ids, then we'll
have to live with carrying around those superflous la
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 06.12.2013, 13:01 +0100 schrieb Johan Tibell:
> When we merge in the testsuite repo, can we still keep the old commit
> IDs? They're referenced from all over the place.
that depends on the style of merge:
* With pathname rewriting:
+ git can easily trace the history of a
Hi,
When we merge in the testsuite repo, can we still keep the old commit IDs?
They're referenced from all over the place.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Joachim Breitner
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, den 06.12.2013, 11:05 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio Riedel:
> > PS: if anyone wonders why the
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 06.12.2013, 11:05 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio Riedel:
> PS: if anyone wonders why the testsuite.git history is so large: there
> were a few *huge* binary files with bad compressibility checked in by
> accident, such as the one removed via
>
>[..]
>
> s/dph/words/dph-words-fas
On 2013-12-05 at 14:32:10 +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
[...]
> whereas, when I create a new git repo containing only the HEAD commit
> from testsuite.git, the resulting single packfile:
>
> 204K Dec 5 14:19
> .git/objects/pack/pack-27355d714321978fd34c21ce341a7b55f416719a.idx
> 2.5M D
I'm all for converting to submodules. Since we will have submodules
anyway, we could also convert testsuite et al to submodules and see how
painful that is before deciding to fold them in to the main repo. I'm
not clear on the pros/cons of having, e.g., testsuite, as a submodule vs
folded in. The s
On 2013-12-05 at 15:17:53 +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:03:42PM +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
>>
>> However, if the testsuite/ was already checked out before the 'sync-all
>> pull', the 'testsuite/.git' folder won't be removed automatically (and
>> it shouldn't hurt
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:03:42PM +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
>
> However, if the testsuite/ was already checked out before the 'sync-all
> pull', the 'testsuite/.git' folder won't be removed automatically (and
> it shouldn't hurt either, as 'sync-all' won't traverse it anymore after
> g
On 2013-12-05 at 12:31:40 +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> What (if anything) do we need to do when updating existing local repos. Will
> everything be ok if I just do
>sync-all pull
...assuming there's no important uncommitted data left in testsuite/
(and ideally nowhere else in the sour
Lets not lose our history or make it annoying to access. Disk is cheap.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> Hello Joachim,
>
> On 2013-12-05 at 12:56:55 +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 05.12.2013, 12:15 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio
> > Riedel:
Hello Joachim,
On 2013-12-05 at 12:56:55 +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 05.12.2013, 12:15 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio
> Riedel:
>> PS: I didn't merge in testsuite's Git history as that would bloat
>> ghc.git quite a bit;
>
> would that really be a problem? How different
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 05.12.2013, 12:15 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio
Riedel:
> PS: I didn't merge in testsuite's Git history as that would bloat
> ghc.git quite a bit;
would that really be a problem? How different are the numbers?
I’m a fan of keeping history readily available, so unless i
-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Repository Reorganization Question
|
| On 2013-12-05 at 11:17:01 +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
|
| [...]
|
| > Fyi, I've drafted how the change would look like in the new ghc.git
| > branch 'wip/T8545' so we can test/evaluate the e
On 2013-12-05 at 11:17:01 +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
[...]
> Fyi, I've drafted how the change would look like in the new ghc.git
> branch 'wip/T8545' so we can test/evaluate the effects/fallout before
> peforming this operation on 'master'.
>
> So running
>
> git clone -b wip/T8545 git
On 2013-12-04 at 22:24:40 +0100, Austin Seipp wrote:
> So, the question is: should we go ahead and pull the trigger on some
> of these perhaps? Herbert collected some numbers on the git
> repositories and outlined all the basic details here:
>
> https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/GitRepoReorgani
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 04.12.2013, 15:24 -0600 schrieb Austin Seipp:
> The only thing I'd honestly propose right now is folding 'testsuite'
> into the main repository, but of course we should see what people
> think - perhaps we should keep base/etc off the table for now, since
> they seem more cont
;
> | -Original Message-
> | From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of
> | Austin Seipp
> | Sent: 04 December 2013 21:25
> | To: ghc-devs@haskell.org
> | Subject: Repository Reorganization Question
> |
> | Hi all,
> |
> | While discussin
riginal Message-
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of
| Austin Seipp
| Sent: 04 December 2013 21:25
| To: ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Repository Reorganization Question
|
| Hi all,
|
| While discussing something with Herbert this week in preparation of
| making a ne
Hi all,
While discussing something with Herbert this week in preparation of
making a new stable branch, he brought a good point to my attention,
which is that if we go ahead and reorganize the repository situation
post 7.8, merging things to the stable branch from HEAD will become a
bit harder.
N
44 matches
Mail list logo
