simonmarhaskell at gmail.com
Thu Aug 9 04:07:47 EDT 2007
Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 04:19:29PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> I've just made GHC's Cabal into a branch.
> FWIW I think this is a mistake. It'll make changing Cabal as part of
> changes to the larger system harder, and increases the global amount of
> effort necessary.
> Also, I think Cabal patches would benefit from being checked with GHC's
> I don't think that Duncan's argument that requiring validation of Cabal
> patches would hamper new developers is valid, as their patches will
> always be being applied by someone like Duncan, who could do the
I'm not especially keen on having another branch either, but the
alternative is that patches to Cabal must pass GHC's validate before being
pushed, and that puts the burden on the Cabal developers to fix GHC and the
core packages when breaking changes are made to Cabal - that doesn't seem
OTOH it's true that the GHC build is a good testcase for Cabal (it looks
like Cabal is broken right now, and testing with GHC would have discovered
Duncan, any thoughts? Do you prefer the branch, or would you be happy to
run GHC's validate before pushing to Cabal? This would affect people like
Ross who push directly to Cabal too.
More information about the Cvs-ghc