RE: Coordinating the Hadrian merge
Thanks Alp and Ben! I fully agree with you. Let's go ahead. Ben: I guess you'll do the actual merge -- feel free to do this whenever you like.
How should we handle ticket tracking post-merge? The easiest option would probably be to keep the existing tickets on GitHub and ask that new tickets be reported via Trac.
Yes, this sounds good.
Cheers,
Andrey
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Gamari [mailto:ben@well-typed.com]
Sent: 16 October 2018 02:33
To: Andrey Mokhov
Hi Ben,
Yes, I'm fine to merge, but we should make it clear that Hadrian should not be used just yet:
1) It is currently broken due to some recent changes in GHC.
2) Alp made tremendous progress with fixing the testsuite failures, but there are still some failures left.
3) There are a few usability requests by Simon Marlow that we need to address.
In the past we discussed squashing the project's early history however I've had very little luck doing this cleanly
Sure, I'm happy to make it clear that things are still in flux and that there are known weaknesses. That being said, I'm not sure it helps to active discourage use. Afterall, there will be little incentive for others to help find and fix the remaining issues unless there are users.
Ouch, it would be a bit grim to merge all those early commits. On the other hand, I looked at commits at the middle of Hadrian's history and they look quite sensible, just overly fine-grained. So, even if we could somehow squash the early history, that probably wouldn't give us much saving in terms of the commit count -- it would still be more than 1K.
Right; given that GHC itself has more than 50k commits I'm not terribly concerned about Hadrian's contribution. How should we handle ticket tracking post-merge? The easiest option would probably be to keep the existing tickets on GitHub and ask that new tickets be reported via Trac. Cheers, - Ben
participants (1)
-
Andrey Mokhov