I'm not sure if your statement regarding the decoupling between contributors
and VCSes holds water. The VCS is definitely a factor, but certainly not the
only one. I've been demotivated by VCSes before and it has directly impacted
whether I continued my involvement. Granted that the VCS was SCCS
I agree with Roman's position. I would prefer to stay with darcs (it has its
advantages and disadvantages, but has definitely been improving much in the
past).
In any case, all of GHC including all dependencies must be available and
patchable with a *single* VCS. Mixing VCS' will lead to madn
On 10 January 2011 22:19, Simon Marlow wrote:
> We're intrested in opinions from both active and potential GHC
> developers/contributors. Let us know what you think - would this make life
> harder or easier for you? Would it make you less likely or more likely to
> contribute?
I would really li
I'm inclined to vote +1 for a move to git. JP and I seem to collaborate just
fine using github for EclipseFP and scion, FWIW. I tend to develop on ad hoc
branches before I merge changes back onto the master branch.
I can't say that either of us have run into significant problems, although I
did ho
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Simon Marlow wrote:
It's time to consider again whether we should migrate GHC development from
darcs to (probably) git.
From our perspective at GHC HQ, the biggest problem that we would hope to
solve by switching is that darcs makes branching and merging very difficult
f
On Jan 10, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> We're intrested in opinions from both active and potential GHC
> developers/contributors. Let us know what you think - would this make life
> harder or easier for you? Would it make you less likely or more likely to
> contribute?
+1 for mo
I just want to point out that since the last discussion we collected
some migration advice at
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/GitForDarcsUsers
Some of it may be untested (or wrong), but it should be a good starting point.
On 10 January 2011 22:15, Neil Mitchell wrote:
>> As another non-
So the basic point seems to be: "if you know how to use a tool, you don't
usually curse and swear when you use it. If you don't, you tend to swear a
lot!"
:)
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Adam Wick wrote:
> On 01/10/2011 08:52 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>
>> If I were considering contributin
On 01/10/2011 08:52 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
If I were considering contributing minor patches to a project, the use
of git would probably not deter me too much - I can cope with the
simple stuff. But if I wanted more major involvement, git would
definitely cause me to think twice about wheth
> As another non-GHC contributor, my opinion should probably also count for
> little, but my experience with git has been poor.
>
> I have used git daily in my job for the last year. Like Simon PJ, I
> struggle to understand the underlying model of git, despite reading quite a
> few tutorials. I
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Pavel Perikov wrote:
> Please please consider Mercurial if migration from darcs is inevitable :)
>
For what it's worth, Mercurial generally interoperates quite well with git
and github, using the hg-git plugin. As a longtime Mercurial user and an
occasional GHC c
On 11.01.2011, at 0:29, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, Mercurial generally interoperates quite well with git
> and github, using the hg-git plugin. As a longtime Mercurial user and an
> occasional GHC contributor, it wouldn't be a practical problem for me if GHC
> were to swi
On 10/01/2011, at 13:27, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 10/01/2011 13:02, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
>> However, I remember the last time this came up there were some issues
>> that might make migration painful. From the top of my head:
>>
>> 1) Some people expressed concern that they would have to use two
Hello,
I have been working on a GHC branch for the last few months and, for me,
switching to git would be a win because I find it quite difficult to keep my
branch and HEAD synchronized. I allocate about a day, probably about once a
month, to redo my repository so that it is in sync with HEAD.
M
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 01:27:17PM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> It would be a prerequisite to switching that a GHC developer only has to
> use one VCS. So we either migrate dependencies to git, or mirror them
> in GHC-specific git branches.
I think it's hard to know how well it's going to w
I am very interested in contributing to GHC, though the state of
development with darcs makes me hesitate. A switch to git would make
contribution to the project much easier.
--trevor
On 01/10/2011 03:19 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
> It's time to consider again whether we should migrate GHC developm
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 01:27:17PM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> I don't think the dependencies get very deep in most cases, and my
> impression is that we often don't want to pull the dependencies anyway,
> so darcs forces us to merge the patch manually (Ian would be able to say
> for sure
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:47:43PM -0500, Norman Ramsey wrote:
>
> My workflow has never involved much cherry-picking, and I tried
> revising history ('rebasing') once and didn't like it. But I use
> git's "cheap branching and merging" workflow *very* heavily.
Do you mean you've used this to do
> It's time to consider again whether we should migrate GHC development
> from darcs to (probably) git.
I'd be thrilled to see GHC migrate to git, and I'd be much more likely
to make new contributions to the back end.
The rest of this email contains observations about my own experience
with so
Hi,
I need to be able to take a piece of Haskell source code and get an simplified,
typed, intermediate representation of the AST, which means I need to use
compiler/coreSyn/CoreSyn.lhs
So I'm first trying to get the desguaredModule of the source code with
...
modSum <- getModS
Hi,
I need to be able to take a piece of Haskell source code and get an simplified,
typed, intermediate representation of the AST, which means I need to use
compiler/coreSyn/CoreSyn.lhs
So I'm first trying to get the desguaredModule of the source code with
...
modSum <- getModS
On 10 Jan 2011, at 14:02, Gregory Collins wrote:
+1. I don't have a lot of skin in this particular game (I'm not
currently a GHC contributor and am unlikely to become one in the near
future), but I can offer some anecdotal evidence:
As another non-GHC contributor, my opinion should probably als
As everyone has been saying, the primary issue is the workflow of the main
contributors and the cost of the transition.
However, I made the transition to Git and GitHub earlier this year and that
initial investment has been repaid handsomely (it’s the first system I have
felt truly comfortab
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Nils Anders Danielsson
wrote:
> Even if GitHub is used you should probably arrange some other kind of
> backup solution, because GitHub reserves the right to delete your
> repository "for any reason at any time" (http://help.github.com/terms/).
If that would ever
On 2011-01-10 16:39, Daniel Peebles wrote:
(especially if it lived on github)
Even if GitHub is used you should probably arrange some other kind of
backup solution, because GitHub reserves the right to delete your
repository "for any reason at any time" (http://help.github.com/terms/).
--
/NAD
On 10.01.2011, at 19:29, Johan Tibell wrote:
> I'm
> not trying to get into a Git vs Mercurial argument here. I have more
> important things to do, like writing code. :)
Absolutely true :)
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Pavel Perikov wrote:
> Probably most valuable are the opinions of GHC development team of course :)
> Git really seem to be more popular, Mercurial just seem more streamlined to
> me :)
Their preference if of course very important, but they partly wanted
to make
I'd be for a move, but haven't contributed much lately. I use Git for
all my personal projects, so I consider Git to be useful. I
personally find sending patches via Git to be harder than with Darcs,
but if we use Github the pull-request-based model should work well.
I used Git on Windows two ye
Am 10.01.2011 14:02, schrieb Max Bolingbroke:
2) There was also concern that Git isn't so great on Windows. I have
heard that this is less of an issue now, but I never personally
suffered from any problems, so can't be sure. (FWIW I used Git on
Windows industrially ~1 year ago for 3 months and d
On 10.01.2011, at 18:59, Johan Tibell wrote:
> I've just observed what other Haskellers talk about
> and where I usually find projects (when they are not in Darcs). We
> could probably pull the numbers of Hackage.
Probably most valuable are the opinions of GHC development team of course :)
Git
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Pavel Perikov wrote:
>
> On 10.01.2011, at 16:40, Johan Tibell wrote:
>> While Mercurial is a fine choice, I think there are more Haskellers
>> that use Git than Mercurial. Probably because GitHub is such an
>> awesome service.
>
> Interesting. It will be great to
On Mon, Jan 10 2011, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
> 2) There was also concern that Git isn't so great on Windows. I have
> heard that this is less of an issue now, but I never personally
> suffered from any problems, so can't be sure. (FWIW I used Git on
> Windows industrially ~1 year ago for 3 months a
I fully support this (especially if it lived on github), but we should
probably sort the top contributors to GHC in the past year or so and
consider their opinions on the matter in that order :) I certainly would not
be on that list. A git(hub)-based workflow would however facilitate any
minor cont
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 01:27:17PM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 10/01/2011 13:02, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
>> 2) There was also concern that Git isn't so great on Windows. I have
>> heard that this is less of an issue now, but I never personally
>> suffered from any problems, so can't be sure. (FW
On 10.01.2011, at 16:40, Johan Tibell wrote:
> While Mercurial is a fine choice, I think there are more Haskellers
> that use Git than Mercurial. Probably because GitHub is such an
> awesome service.
Interesting. It will be great to see any numbers (really, just curious).
bitbucket seems to be o
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Pavel Perikov wrote:
> Please please consider Mercurial if migration from darcs is inevitable :)
While Mercurial is a fine choice, I think there are more Haskellers
that use Git than Mercurial. Probably because GitHub is such an
awesome service.
Johan
__
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Max Bolingbroke
wrote:
> Naturally other workflows are possible and I'm sure other list members
> will chime in with their own favourites :-)
Here's the flow I use:
http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
with the exception of having the master b
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
> We're intrested in opinions from both active and potential GHC
> developers/contributors. Let us know what you think - would this make life
> harder or easier for you? Would it make you less likely or more likely to
> contribute?
I would a
Please please consider Mercurial if migration from darcs is inevitable :)
P.
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
On 10/01/2011 13:02, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
On 10 January 2011 11:19, Simon Marlow wrote:
Let us know what you think - would this make life
harder or easier for you? Would it make you less likely or more likely to
contribute?
Well, as a sometime-contributor I would certainly be happier hacki
On 10 January 2011 11:19, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Let us know what you think - would this make life
> harder or easier for you? Would it make you less likely or more likely to
> contribute?
Well, as a sometime-contributor I would certainly be happier hacking
on GHC if it were git based. When worki
It's time to consider again whether we should migrate GHC development
from darcs to (probably) git.
From our perspective at GHC HQ, the biggest problem that we would hope
to solve by switching is that darcs makes branching and merging very
difficult for us. We have a few branches of HEAD that
Try GHC.getNamesInScope, which will give you all the entities in scope.
Then use GHC.lookupName to see what manner of beast the Name is bound to (an
Id, Class, TyCon etc)
Does that help?
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell
43 matches
Mail list logo
