andy.adamsmoran at gmail.com
Tue Jan 29 21:18:48 CET 2013
+1 re upgrading trac.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:11 PM, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> wrote:
> If we are migrating the GHC trac would it also be possible to upgrade
> it to 1.0? The current version 0.11.6 is fairly old now and 1.0
> contains a few improvements that would be nice. (e.g., support for
> multiple git repos so we could see patches to libraries as well).
> On 29 January 2013 09:39, Ian Lynagh <ian at well-typed.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 09:19:36AM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>>> | The discussion about replacing abbot seems to be achieving consensus.
>>> | There's no urgency, but if it seems to taper out again then I'll try
>>> | prodding the committee to put the plan into action.
>>> What *is* the consensus?
>> To get a Hetzner server, and run a bunch of VMs on it for the different
>> I think everyone's agreed on that, but there's some discussion about how
>> best to handle backups.
>>> We should get on with this. It bit several times recently, and we don't want to wait until it becomes really serious! (And it looks bad.)
>> Replacing abbot isn't related to the recent problems with abbot. We want
>> to replace it because the hardware is a few years old and out of
>> warranty, but the recent problems were software issues and would
>> probably affect the replacement in the same way.
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
More information about the ghc-devs