Version control systems
Manuel M T Chakravarty
chak at cse.unsw.edu.au
Sun Aug 10 05:06:58 EDT 2008
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy <rl at cse.unsw.edu.au
> > wrote:
> Maybe investing some time in fixing the most obvious darcs problems
> would be a better solution?
> We're working on that over at Darcs HQ, but there is no guarantee
> that we'd come close to fixing the problems within the 4-5 week
> window that Ian mentioned. Supposing that the main problems GHC has
> with darcs 2 format get solved in the next month, would that give
> GHC reason enough to keep using darcs? It seems many of you are
> eager to use git; perhaps even if darcs was working to satisfaction.
> People will be working on making darcs work better with the GHC repo
> as a test case either way. And personally, since I'm not a GHC dev,
> the decision doesn't affect my life. Having said that, I'm still
> obviously biased. I'd love for darcs to work well enough that this
> never came up.
Same here, and fwiw I won't change any of my many other darcs repos
any time soon.
However, as I have said before, if ghc is to switch, it must be a
clean switch, and no messy use of two vcs at the same time for ghc and
> Let me throw out one more idea:
> What if, as a GHC contributor, I could pick equally between git and
> darcs? My understanding is that, while not optimal, you could use
> tailor to synchronize a darcs repository with a git one. Offer
> up both repositories and keep them in sync. Let the masses decide?
I don't think that this technical feasible. I used tailor once to
convert a CVS repo to darcs, and while that was better than throwing
away the history, it was pretty messy and nothing that you would want
to do on a regular basis. Besides, even if the actual conversion
would work smoothly (which I strongly doubt), you'd immediately be
faced with problems of atomicity and associated race conditions of
commits to the two repos.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users