Re: RFC: migrating to git

2011-01-11 Thread roconnor
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Simon Marlow wrote: Thanks for this. I distilled your example into a shell script that uses git, and demonstrates that git gets the merge wrong: http://hpaste.org/42953/git_mismerge I've posted an annotation at http://hpaste.org/paste/42953/git_mismerge_annotation#p42

Re: RFC: migrating to git

2011-01-11 Thread David Brown
On Tue, Jan 11 2011, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: > On 11/01/2011, at 22:20, Simon Marlow wrote: > >> On 11/01/11 21:57, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: >>> This would be useful. Unfortunately, git's rewinding seems rather >>> crippled compared to darcs. >> >> In what way? > > Thomas says that it doesn't

Re: New codegen failing test-cases

2011-01-11 Thread Edward Z. Yang
Hello Simon, Have you gotten a chance to look at these two hunks? (see below) Thanks, Edward Excerpts from Edward Z. Yang's message of Fri Dec 10 10:59:26 -0500 2010: > Ok, I've got a patch that fixes this segfault. In the process I looked > at all patches to Cg* modules after Nov 2009 and look

Re: RFC: migrating to git

2011-01-11 Thread Roman Leshchinskiy
On 11/01/2011, at 22:20, Simon Marlow wrote: > On 11/01/11 21:57, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: >> IMO, darcs-all works pretty well. I don't think I ever really had >> problems with missing library patches. > > I often see problems where someone has done 'darcs pull' rather than > './darcs-all pull'

Re: RFC: migrating to git

2011-01-11 Thread Simon Marlow
On 11/01/11 21:57, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: On 11/01/2011, at 21:41, Iavor Diatchki wrote: If GHC and the libraries on which it depends were in git (migrated, or mirrored), then we could use git sub-modules to track the dependencies between changes to GHC and changes to the libraries. Roughly

Re: RFC: migrating to git

2011-01-11 Thread Roman Leshchinskiy
On 11/01/2011, at 21:41, Iavor Diatchki wrote: > If GHC and the libraries on which it depends were in git (migrated, or > mirrored), then we could use git sub-modules to track the dependencies > between changes to GHC and changes to the libraries. > > Roughly, the workflow would be like th

Re: RFC: migrating to git

2011-01-11 Thread Iavor Diatchki
Hello, On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: > On 10/01/2011, at 13:27, 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.

Re: RFC: migrating to git

2011-01-11 Thread Thomas Schilling
On 11 January 2011 19:07, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: > On 11/01/2011, at 16:14, Tony Finch wrote: > >> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: >>> >>> It also seems to make finding buggy patches rather hard. >> >> Have a look at `git bisect`. > > I'm aware of git bisect. It doesn't do what I

Re: RFC: migrating to git

2011-01-11 Thread Roman Leshchinskiy
On 11/01/2011, at 16:14, Tony Finch wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: >> >> It also seems to make finding buggy patches rather hard. > > Have a look at `git bisect`. I'm aware of git bisect. It doesn't do what I want. I usually have a pretty good idea of which patch(es) m

Re: RFC: migrating to git

2011-01-11 Thread Tony Finch
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: > > It also seems to make finding buggy patches rather hard. Have a look at `git bisect`. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 L

Re: RFC: migrating to git

2011-01-11 Thread Gábor Lehel
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:19 PM, 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

Re: RFC: migrating to git

2011-01-11 Thread Simon Marlow
On 11/01/2011 00:36, rocon...@theorem.ca wrote: 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 darc

Re: RFC: migrating to git

2011-01-11 Thread Malcolm Wallace
On 10 Jan 2011, at 22:37, Daniel Peebles wrote: 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!" There is a meta-point though - how easy is it to learn the tool? Regards, Malcolm

RE: Question about Haskell AST

2011-01-11 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
desugarModule returns a GHC.DesugaredModule Inside a DesugaredModule is a field dm_core_module :: HscTypes.ModGuts Inside a ModGuts is a field mg_binds :: [CoreSyn.CoreBind] And there are your bindings! Does that tell you what you wanted to know? Simon PS: When you have it clear, would you like

RE: migrating to git

2011-01-11 Thread Sittampalam, Ganesh
Simon Marlow wrote: > The darcs team have been making great strides with performance, but > conflict handling remains a serious problem. The darcs roadmap > doesn't show this being fixed in the near future > >http://wiki.darcs.net/Roadmap I've just updated the roadmap for darcs 2.8 (the n