git and sync-all: Why not merge in libraries?
bdonlan at gmail.com
Thu Aug 7 14:07:07 EDT 2008
With the upcoming switchover to git, has any thought gone into merging
in the libraries into the main ghc tree (eliminating the need for a
'git-all')? git can merge two histories with no common ancestor, so no
history would be lost - though you'd have to ask greater gurus than I
the proper procedure. It's been done a few times on git itself to fold
in externally developed tools.
As I understand it, you could even continue development of the
libraries on a seperate tree, as long as you don't try merging changes
on ghc.git to $library.git, unless you filter out the GHC-only changes
first somehow (merging $library.git back into ghc.git, as I understand
it, should work...).
Not sure if I'm missing something here, or if it's impractical for
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users