how to checkout proper submodules

[John Lato]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:10 PM, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5 June 2013 01:43, Manuel M T Chakravarty <chak at cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Austin and Johan. It's a bizarre setup. Submodules have
>> their pain points (which we already have to deal with), but the ability to
>> properly snapshot and branch the whole tree would be a serious benefit IMO.
>>
>> Manuel
>>
>> PS: While we are at it, why don't we just have the main repos on GitHub
>> and use forks and pull requests like the rest of the world? (Using Git, but
>> not GitHub's superb infrastructure, seems like a terrible waste to me.)
>>
>
> I'd be all for this. We partially use the GitHub infrastructure since trac
> broke and I changed the emails to point to GitHub instead. I also often do
> code reviews with other devs on a personal GHC fork on github before
> merging in.
>
> I believe it would also help encourage more contributors (especially for
> libraries) but others have expressed disagreement with this point of view
> in the past and I'm not in hold of data.
>

I strongly suspect that fixing the original issue from this thread would do
much more to encourage contributions.  It certainly doesn't matter to me if
ghc is on github or not, but I (as an extremely meager GHC hacker) find it
near-impossible to maintain a usable repo if I want to do any sort of
branching or checkouts.  And while I hate git submodules with a passion, I
agree with everyone who thus far has said that the current practice is even
less usable (all the drawbacks and none of benefits).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20130605/1901f0bb/attachment.htm>