<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Malcolm Wallace <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:malcolm.wallace@cs.york.ac.uk">malcolm.wallace@cs.york.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Manuel wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
| It is worth pointing out that I *never* validate against ghc head when<br>
| I commit to the core libraries.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Sorry, but I think the only reason its halfway acceptable is that Malcolm didn't break the GHC build yet. If he does, I'll be screaming as loudly as for anybody else.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Whilst I'm in no way saying that a working nhc98 head is anything like as important as a working ghc head, are you saying that I should scream louder everytime someone breaks nhc98 too? It is happening several times a week at the moment. It can be jolly frustrating when I have other things I could be doing. But I accept that it is simply the price to pay for keeping up-to-date with the libraries everyone else is using. Ghc has no monopoly on the "core" libraries. They are a shared resource.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
to be honest, I don't think its a valid reason for us to go to the trouble of having two vcs for ghc.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well indeed, I don't want to stand in the way of ghc. There are far more people contributing to it, so their needs have greater weight. But I am raising the libraries question, because I think it has an impact much more widely than just ghc (or Hugs or nhc98, for that matter).<br>
<br>
Git may turn out to be sufficiently easy to use that this will all seem like a storm in a teacup once the dust has settled. (I'm not filled with confidence by blog postings that say "granted, git is a usability disaster zone", and "[you] may find git to be hostile, unfriendly and needlessly complex", but those seem to be minority opinions.)</blockquote>
<div><br>I'm not a contributor for hugs, nhc, jhc, ghc, or any other project that is affect here, but when I see this part of the discussion come up again and again I have to wonder if anyone has done the obvious thing of asking these other communities if they would mind switching to git?<br>
<br>Of course each of them are free to say "No, we won't switch" for any reason they like and you'd have to then deal with the situation. But, it seems that it can't hurt to ask, and I get the impression no one has asked them formally. If everyone did happen to agree on using git for the shared libraries, wouldn't that end this part of the debate?<br>
<br>Just my $0.02,<br>Jason<br></div></div><br></div>