RFC: migrating to git

Roman Leshchinskiy rl at cse.unsw.edu.au
Wed Jan 12 20:44:26 CET 2011

On 12/01/2011, at 09:22, Simon Marlow wrote:

> On 11/01/2011 23:11, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
>> 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.
> True, however the build system could automatically check whether you had missed this step, because it could check the hashes.

That would be an improvement. How do you pull submodule patches which the main repo doesn't depend on, though? Out of curiousity, has anyone here used submodules for something similar to what we would need?

>> 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.
> Right, not being able to automatically commute patches is a regression compared to darcs.  Git isn't universally "better" than darcs, which is why we're having this discussion - the question is, do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Oh, definitely, I wasn't implying than one is somehow objectively better than the other. All I'm saying is that darcs is much better suited to my personal workflow than git. Or at least the very small part of git that I've been able to figure out (I do have to say that I've probably read about 3x as much about git as I ever read about darcs, though).


More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list