On Sunday 25 February 2007 17:48, Ross Paterson wrote:
Most of the Hugs packagers have been using version numbers like 200609 for some time now, so we ought not to move to small numbers.
Hmmm, so what is your exact suggestion for our numbering scheme for released versions and snapshot versions?
[...] For releases, I think Hugs should move away from fetching snapshots of libraries and tools from repositories, and use tarballs of numbered releases instead, now that we have a home for those. For library development, I find it convenient to share a single copy of the library sources between GHC and Hugs builds.
Using released packages only for Hugs releases is a good thing, although GHC and nhc98 are not doing it currently (at least not via their scripts, I suspect that there is some manual intervention). I am not exactly sure how to handle this: Should we have a table of explicit package versions to get, or is there some canonical URL for the latest released version of a package? And how exactly should the sharing work? And what about nhc98?
* I think that Hugs should finally be moved to darcs instead of CVS, the current mix of version control systems is a bit obscure and we need darcs for the libraries, anyway. I have no former experience in doing this conversion, but I think others on this list have, so I'd prefer not doing this for myself (or at least get some hint/tricks/... from others who have done it before).
No objection, but I think it takes a bit of extra effort to make the history look nice, e.g. check
http://darcs.haskell.org/darcsweb/darcsweb.cgi?r=parsec;a=summary
Exactly this "bit of extra effort" is unclear to me, so I'd prefer if somebody else would do the conversion. Cheers, S.