How to develop on a (GHC) branch with darcs
simonpj at microsoft.com
Mon Dec 6 20:43:22 CET 2010
I too wish there was a good solution here. I've taken to making dated repos, thus
When it becomes unusable, I make a brand new repo, with a new date starting from HEAD, pull all the old patches, unrecord them all, rerecord a mega-patch, and commit.
This is darcs's primary shortcoming. It is well known, and the darcs folk are working on it. But I don't think they expect to have a solution anytime soon. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Is the pain of this more than the pain of switching to git? Until now we have not had many active collaborators with their own trees. Now we have at least three: Iavor (numeric types), Brent (new coercions), Pedro (new generics). So it's becoming a much bigger issue.
| Pull features patches from 'ghc-tn' into 'ghc-tn-merge', one at a time.
| darcs pull ghc-tn
Darcs can help with that. Use 'darcs pull --skip-conflicts' to pull all non-conflicting patches. Then you can pull a single conflicting patch. That speeds things up quite a bit.
| -----Original Message-----
| From: glasgow-haskell-users-bounces at haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-
| bounces at haskell.org] On Behalf Of Iavor Diatchki
| Sent: 06 December 2010 01:57
| To: GHC Users Mailing List; darcs-users at darcs.net
| Subject: How to develop on a (GHC) branch with darcs
| I am doing some work on a GHC branch and I am having a lot of troubles
| (and spending a lot of time) trying to keep my branch up to date with HEAD,
| so I would be very grateful for any suggestions by fellow developers of how
| I might improve the process. Here is what I have tried so far:
| First Attempt
| My branch, called 'ghc-tn', was an ordinary darcs repo. I recorded
| my changes as needed, and every now and then would pull from the HEAD repo.
| If conflicts occurred, I would resolve them and record a patch.
| Very quickly I run into what, apparently, is a well-known darcs problem
| where trying to pull from HEAD would not terminate in a reasonable
| amount of time.
| Second Attempt
| Avoid "conflict patches" by constantly changing my patches. This is how
| I've been doing this:
| Initial state:
| ghc: a repository with an up-to-date version of GHC head
| ghc-tn: my feature repo based on a slightly out-of-date GHC HEAD.
| Merge ghc-tn with ghc (i.e., integrate developments in GHC HEAD into my branch)
| 1. Create a temporary repository for the merge:
| darcs clone --lazy ghc ghc-tn-merge
| 2. Create a backup of the feature branch (strictly speaking not necessary
| but past experience shows that it is a good idea to have one of those).
| darcs clone --lazy ghc-tn ghc-tn-backup
| 3. Pull features patches from 'ghc-tn' into 'ghc-tn-merge', one at a time.
| darcs pull ghc-tn
| 3.1. If a feature patch causes a conflict, then resolve the conflict
| and create a new patch, obliterating the old one:
| darcs amend-record (creates a new patch, not a conflict patch, I think)
| After repeating this for all branch patches, I have an updated branch
| in 'ghc-tn-merge' with two caveats:
| 1. The new repository does not contain my previous build so I have to
| re-build the entire GHC and libraries from scratch. This is a problem
| because GHC is a large project and rebuilding everything takes a while,
| even on a pretty fast machine. I work around this problem like this:
| 1.1 Obliterate all branch patches from 'ghc-tn'. This, essentially,
| rewinds the repository to the last point when I synchronised with HEAD.
| To do this properly I need to know which patches belong to my branch,
| and which ones are from GHC. (I've been a bit sloppy about this---
| I just use the e-mails of the branch developers to identify these and
| then look at the patches. A better way would be to have some kind
| of naming convention which marks all branch patches).
| 1.2 Pull from 'ghc-tn-merge' into 'ghc-tn'. By construction we know that
| this will succeed and reintroduce the feature changes, together with
| any new updates to GHC into 'ghc-tn'. Now 'ghc-tn-merge' and
| 'ghc-tn-backup' can be deleted.
| 2. The new repository contains rewritten versions of the branch patches
| so---if I understand correctly---it is not compatible with the old one
| (i.e., I cannot just push from my newly updated branch to the public repo
| for my branch as there will be confusion between the old feature patches
| and the new ones). I can think of only one solution to this problem,
| and it is not great:
| 2.1 Delete the original public repo, and publish the new updated repo,
| preferably with a new name. In this way, other developers who have
| the old patches can either just clone the new repo, or go through
| steps 1.1--1.2 but will not accidentally get in a confused state
| by mixing up the new feature patches with the old ones.
| For background, my solution is essentially a manual implementation of what
| is done by git's "rebase" command---except that there "branch patches" and
| various "repository states" are automatically managed by the system so there
| is no need to follow various naming conventions which tend to be error prone.
| Apologies for the longish e-mail but this seems like an important
| problem and I am hoping that there's a better way to do things.
| Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
| Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users