I'd be for a move, but haven't contributed much lately. I use Git for
all my personal projects, so I consider Git to be useful. I
personally find sending patches via Git to be harder than with Darcs,
but if we use Github the pull-request-based model should work well.
I used Git on Windows two years ago and didn't have any problems (the
case sensitive file name issue has a well-documented setting to avoid
issues). I think I used msysGit and used msys to build GHC, so those
should work well together. (Granted, though, I used Git only for a
small code base at the time.)
We'd probably have to adopt the workflow that Johan linked to
(separate branch for every larger change, merge with --no-ff) but that
might actually improve things (e.g., unmerging a branch if necessary).
The important issues, mentioned by Max, remain and I agree that GHC HQ
should have the last decision on these.
On 10 January 2011 11:19, Simon Marlow
It's time to consider again whether we should migrate GHC development from darcs to (probably) git.
From our perspective at GHC HQ, the biggest problem that we would hope to solve by switching is that darcs makes branching and merging very difficult for us. We have a few branches of HEAD that are very painful to keep merged with HEAD, and we would almost certainly have more branches if the overhead were lower. In some sense the overhead is self-inflicted because we have the no-conflict policy in the mainline repository, but that is to avoid problems with darcs' merging algorithms (both performance and correctness). We are still using darcs v1 patches rather than v2, but there are known problems with v2 which are preventing us from upgrading.
The darcs team have been making great strides with performance, but conflict handling remains a serious problem. The darcs roadmap doesn't show this being fixed in the near future
Rebase support is coming, and it does work, though the workflow is a bit laborious.
Besides the branching/merging/conflict issue, switching to git would give us plenty of side benefits, notably via access to a wealth of tool support. Making contribution easy is important to us too, and there are a lot of people using git.
The cost of switching is quite high, which is one reason we decided to stay with darcs last time. We have multiple repos that need to be converted, and for some of them, where the repo is being shared with other projects, we may have to mirror rather than convert in place. We're prepared to put in the effort if the gains would be worthwhile though (offers of help are more than welcome!).
We're intrested in opinions from both active and potential GHC developers/contributors. Let us know what you think - would this make life harder or easier for you? Would it make you less likely or more likely to contribute?
Cheers, Simon
_______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list Cvs-ghc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
-- Push the envelope. Watch it bend.