Proposal: better library management ideas (was: how to checkout proper submodules)
jwlato at gmail.com
Mon Jun 10 08:27:44 CEST 2013
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Roman Cheplyaka <roma at ro-che.info> wrote:
> * John Lato <jwlato at gmail.com> [2013-06-10 07:59:55+0800]
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Roman Cheplyaka <roma at ro-che.info>
> > >
> > > What I'm trying to say here is that there's hope for a portable base.
> > > Maybe not in the form of split base — I don't know.
> > > But it's the direction we should be moving anyways.
> > >
> > > And usurping base by GHC is a move in the opposite direction.
> > Maybe that's a good thing? The current situation doesn't really seem to
> > working. Keeping base separate negatively impacts workflow of GHC devs
> > evidenced by these threads), just to support something that other
> > don't use anyway. Maybe it would be easier to fold base back into ghc
> > try again, perhaps after some code cleanup? Having base in ghc may
> > more motivation to separate it properly.
> After base is in GHC, separating it again will be only harder, not
> easier. Or do you have a specific plan in mind?
It's more about motivation. It seems to me right now base is in a halfway
state. People think that moving it further away from ghc is The Right
Thing To Do, but nobody is feeling enough pain to be sufficiently motivated
to do it. If we apply pain, then someone will be motivated to do it
properly. And if nobody steps up, maybe having a platform-agnostic base
isn't really very important.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-devs