Ben Gamari ben at well-typed.com
Thu Oct 19 19:49:48 UTC 2017

Andrey Mokhov <andrey.mokhov at newcastle.ac.uk> writes:

> Hi Mathieu,
> Yes, in principle we can merge right now, as long as it's clear that Hadrian still requires more work before taking over.
> My only concern is that merging will make it more difficult for us to
> quickly iterate on Hadrian: the GitHub workflow is more convenient (at
> least for me) than the Phabricator one. Perhaps, we can keep Hadrian
> on GitHub as a submodule? This also has the advantage that we can keep
> all existing references to GitHub issues/PRs without migrating
> everything to GHC Trac. It would be very unfortunate to lose all
> history during the merge.
Okay, so if we want to preserve history then I would suggest that we go
the subtree route. That is pretty much precisely the use-case which
git subtree was designed to address. This will allow us to have Hadrian,
with history, in the GHC tree and you can continue to develop it on
GitHub until things have stabilized. The only question is how to ensure
that the subtree remains up-to-date.


- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20171019/5ab6625e/attachment.sig>

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list