[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Darcs vs. Git again

Hi Iain.

Sex, 2010-01-22 às 00:52 +0000, Iain Lane escreveu:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:18:56PM -0200, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote:
> >These mass changes of debian/watch made me think about having our
> >decision of having some packages in Git and some in Darcs.  I think it
> >would be better to use only one VCS for the group, to make it easier to
> >do this kind of changes, that affects all packages.
> >
> >I reviewed my opinion from the last time we discussed this, and I'm not
> >a radical for darcs: I'd be happy to work with Git too.  OTOH, pet[0]
> >works for darcs and there're 86 dirs in /darcs/pkg-haskell against 12
> >in /git/pkg-haskell.  So, because of these points I think it would be
> >more practical to change them all to darcs.
> This subject seems to be dragged up a lot.

Yes, I have the same feeling.  That's why I'm trying to reach a
consensus now here, since I'm not happy with the current situation.  I
believe we're working with two repositories since we could not get on an
agreement.  I'm trying to reach it now.

> Please don't. I vastly vastly prefer git and git-buildpackage over the 
> darcs packaging tools. This for packages that I am the de-facto 
> maintainer for (agda*). For others I am happy to work with darcs, even 
> though I find it less pleasant.

I understand this and, as I said, I'm ok to work with git too.  If more
people prefer git, we can migrate everything (pet and the other
packages) to git.  The only problem is that it'll require more work.  My
point is not "let's use darcs", it's just "let's have only one repo".

> I'm sure pet can be patched to cope with git too.
> I wonder just how often mass changes are going to be required.

Since the creation of the group they were quite common, and there's at
least one more to be done when GHC 6.12 gets to unstable, changing the
packages to use haskell:Provides.  I believe the main motivation of the
group was to make it easier to work with very similar and simple
packages, and these mass changes are the tool we have to work with them.

> (and how 
> easy it would be to just remember to look at git in case of such events)

Well, it will be double work.  I don't think it's easy at all.  I
usually do a small script to create the patches.  In the current
situation, I'd have to write two scripts.

Greetings Iain, and thanks for answering.

Reply to: