Version control systems

Jason Dagit dagit at
Wed Aug 13 13:11:32 EDT 2008

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Malcolm Wallace <
malcolm.wallace at> wrote:

> Manuel wrote:
>  | It is worth pointing out that I *never* validate against ghc head when
>>> | I commit to the core libraries.
>  Sorry, but I think the only reason its halfway acceptable is that Malcolm
>> didn't break the GHC build yet.  If he does, I'll be screaming as loudly as
>> for anybody else.
> Whilst I'm in no way saying that a working nhc98 head is anything like as
> important as a working ghc head, are you saying that I should scream louder
> everytime someone breaks nhc98 too?  It is happening several times a week at
> the moment.  It can be jolly frustrating when I have other things I could be
> doing.  But I accept that it is simply the price to pay for keeping
> up-to-date with the libraries everyone else is using.  Ghc has no monopoly
> on the "core" libraries.  They are a shared resource.
>  to be honest, I don't think its a valid reason for us to go to the trouble
>> of having two vcs for ghc.
> Well indeed, I don't want to stand in the way of ghc.  There are far more
> people contributing to it, so their needs have greater weight.  But I am
> raising the libraries question, because I think it has an impact much more
> widely than just ghc (or Hugs or nhc98, for that matter).
> Git may turn out to be sufficiently easy to use that this will all seem
> like a storm in a teacup once the dust has settled.  (I'm not filled with
> confidence by blog postings that say "granted, git is a usability disaster
> zone", and "[you] may find git to be hostile, unfriendly and needlessly
> complex", but those seem to be minority opinions.)

I'm not a contributor for hugs, nhc, jhc, ghc, or any other project that is
affect here, but when I see this part of the discussion come up again and
again I have to wonder if anyone has done the obvious thing of asking these
other communities if they would mind switching to git?

Of course each of them are free to say "No, we won't switch" for any reason
they like and you'd have to then deal with the situation.  But, it seems
that it can't hurt to ask, and I get the impression no one has asked them
formally.  If everyone did happen to agree on using git for the shared
libraries, wouldn't that end this part of the debate?

Just my $0.02,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list