Cloning (Shayne Fletcher)

[Artem Pelenitsyn]

Hello Jost,

Thanks for researching this! In fact, Arnaud did his own research on this
topic and submitted !1309 [1] to switch to the absolute paths. The MR has
been approved by Ben swiftly and now awaits merging.

I believe we should default to the common case, which is to use abs paths
making the life of, presumably, many people easier, and let those who
understand submodules hack their way through them.

[1]: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/merge_requests/1309

--
Best wishes,
Artem


On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 12:17, Jost Berthold <jost.berthold at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just on this detail in the previous mails:
>
> On 6/25/19 10:00 PM, ghc-devs-request at haskell.org wrote:
> >> More generally, I'm actually wondering, why GHC's .gitsubmodules use
> > relative paths.  Why not make them absolute?
> >
> > I continue to wonder about that and if switching to absolute paths might
> > remove this wrinkle. Can anyone chime in?
>
> I remember the relative paths for submodules were added to make working
> with several clones of the GHC repo (to lower rebuild cost for
> simultaneous branches or similar) easier.
>
> With relative paths, one can make a second local clone from the first
> one and all references to all submodules will share local data.
>
> That said, this does get in the way sometimes. I changed back to
> absolute paths in my GHC fork quite a while back.
>
>
> / Jost
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20190701/a90b69c9/attachment.html>