RFC: migrating to git
pumpkingod at gmail.com
Mon Jan 10 16:39:44 CET 2011
I fully support this (especially if it lived on github), but we should
probably sort the top contributors to GHC in the past year or so and
consider their opinions on the matter in that order :) I certainly would not
be on that list. A git(hub)-based workflow would however facilitate any
minor contributions I might make (and I'd imagine those of many others).
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's time to consider again whether we should migrate GHC development from
> darcs to (probably) git.
> From our perspective at GHC HQ, the biggest problem that we would hope to
> solve by switching is that darcs makes branching and merging very difficult
> for us. We have a few branches of HEAD that are very painful to keep merged
> with HEAD, and we would almost certainly have more branches if the overhead
> were lower. In some sense the overhead is self-inflicted because we have
> the no-conflict policy in the mainline repository, but that is to avoid
> problems with darcs' merging algorithms (both performance and correctness).
> We are still using darcs v1 patches rather than v2, but there are known
> problems with v2 which are preventing us from upgrading.
> The darcs team have been making great strides with performance, but
> conflict handling remains a serious problem. The darcs roadmap doesn't show
> this being fixed in the near future
> Rebase support is coming, and it does work, though the workflow is a bit
> Besides the branching/merging/conflict issue, switching to git would give
> us plenty of side benefits, notably via access to a wealth of tool support.
> Making contribution easy is important to us too, and there are a lot of
> people using git.
> The cost of switching is quite high, which is one reason we decided to stay
> with darcs last time. We have multiple repos that need to be converted, and
> for some of them, where the repo is being shared with other projects, we may
> have to mirror rather than convert in place. We're prepared to put in the
> effort if the gains would be worthwhile though (offers of help are more than
> We're intrested in opinions from both active and potential GHC
> developers/contributors. Let us know what you think - would this make life
> harder or easier for you? Would it make you less likely or more likely to
> Cvs-ghc mailing list
> Cvs-ghc at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users