RFC: migrating to git

Roman Leshchinskiy rl at cse.unsw.edu.au
Wed Jan 12 00:11:32 CET 2011

On 11/01/2011, at 22:20, Simon Marlow wrote:

> On 11/01/11 21:57, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
>> IMO, darcs-all works pretty well. I don't think I ever really had
>> problems with missing library patches.
> I often see problems where someone has done 'darcs pull' rather than './darcs-all pull' and ended up with a weird compilation error as a result.  If we could eliminate this source of errors, it would be a major win.

A quick look at the docs seems to indicate that we'd need to do

git pull
git submodule update

which doesn't look like a win over darcs-all. Also, I completely fail to understand what git submodule update does. It doesn't seem to pull all patches from the master repo. The git submodule docs are even worse than the rest of the git docs which is rather discouraging.

>> This would be useful. Unfortunately, git's rewinding seems rather
>> crippled compared to darcs.
> In what way?

Thomas says that it doesn't do automatic dependency tracking which looks like a huge weakness to me. Personally, I haven't been able to successfully unpull non-consecutive chunks of patches with git so far but I only tried 2 or 3 times before giving up.


More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list