Suggestion re altering the build system
Manuel M T Chakravarty
chak at cse.unsw.edu.au
Thu May 31 20:16:07 EDT 2007
Simon Marlow wrote,
> Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>> | I understand that incremental builds are more tricky, but during
>> | teaching session I often have only 2 hours to hack on a day.
>> I'm still hopeful that a "last-good-build" date or
>> signature-of-some-kind should do the job. Ideally it goes like this
>> * Look at GHC dev wiki, get last-good-build signature
>> * darcs pull -a -upto sig
>> * make
>> I'm thinking that "sig" could be a date-and-time, which you copy/paste
>> from the wiki into the darcs command.
>> Or am I being naive?
> date/time doesn't work well with darcs. Consider the case where we have
> a successful build on date T, and then someone sent us a patch P that
> they recorded before T. We push the patch, and now "all the patches up
> to date T" includes P, but it didn't when we did the build. This is why
> we need full tags or contexts to identify the contents of the tree.
Yes, it has to be tags. And it need to be tags that are in the ghc repo
*and* all core packages. (As those not being in sync is a common problem.)
More information about the Cvs-ghc