simonmar at microsoft.com
Fri Dec 23 10:32:35 EST 2005
On 20 December 2005 16:19, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 03:50:02PM +0000, John Goerzen wrote:
>> On 2005-12-19, Malcolm Wallace <Malcolm.Wallace at cs.york.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Ross Paterson <ross at soi.city.ac.uk> writes:
>>>> But how about having a separate repository for each library
>> Simon, any thoughts?
> Also, if the library packages are separate, the rest of the stuff in
> the libraries directory would be part of GHC's build system (nhc98
> too at the moment, but it sounds like Malcolm will be changing that)
> so might as well be part of the ghc repository.
The time to mention this would have been a few weeks ago when I proposed
the current scheme :-)
I think it /would/ actually be nicer to split up the repository into
separate packages. However, of the two ways to do this that John
mentioned, only the second is practical IMO - that is, generate the
repositories from CVS. So it's entirely up to John whether he wants to
put the effort in or not.
I don't think the current situation is bad - we had planned to split the
packages into separate repositories eventually anyway, but we would lose
the history at that point. Splitting them now means we keep the
history, which is good.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users