Sorry for replying so late, this mail was sorted into a category I mostly don't read. On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Ian Lynagh wrote:

...

We've made a list of which repos we suggest should be converted, and which should be mirrored, here:

http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/DarcsConversion#Planforlibraries

...

Can you please let us know if you think any of the repos have been put in the wrong category?

Lennart Kolmodin (CCed) has created a Git version of binary he's now working out of:

https://github.com/kolmodin/binary

I don't know if he intends it to become the new upstream location. Lennart?

I see that there is now a repo on github: https://github.com/ghc/packages-binary However, it's a completely different conversion from darcs than the one I did earlier. Please base the GHC copy of binary on the conversion I've already done, as both Johan and I have done work in this repo. You won't be able to pull the changes otherwise. I think it might be a good idea to keep the copy of binary separate from the GHC copy, as GHC probably wants more stability than what we might provide in the short term future. Regarding where the upstream location should be, I guess my repo is the current location where development is done. It's not important to me that it's in my account though, as binary is a community effort. Maybe it should be based in some kind of Haskell Community account? If not, I'll keep it. -- Lennart

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:26:10PM +0200, Lennart Kolmodin wrote:

I see that there is now a repo on github: https://github.com/ghc/packages-binary However, it's a completely different conversion from darcs than the one I did earlier.

Please base the GHC copy of binary on the conversion I've already done, as both Johan and I have done work in this repo. You won't be able to pull the changes otherwise.

What's the best way to do that, given people already have the other repo checked out? i.e. can we do better than asking everyone to rm -rf libraries/binary ./sync-all get ? Thanks Ian

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ian Lynagh wrote:

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:26:10PM +0200, Lennart Kolmodin wrote:

...

I see that there is now a repo on github: https://github.com/ghc/packages-binary However, it's a completely different conversion from darcs than the one I did earlier.

Please base the GHC copy of binary on the conversion I've already done,

...

both Johan and I have done work in this repo. You won't be able to pull

as the

...

changes otherwise.

What's the best way to do that, given people already have the other repo checked out? i.e. can we do better than asking everyone to rm -rf libraries/binary ./sync-all get ?

I guess a hack would be to check for a commit hash id we know exists in your conversion of the repo, which won't exist in my copy of it. If so, remove the repo and fetch again? Lennart

(first sent only to Edward by mistake) On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:

Excerpts from Lennart Kolmodin's message of Wed Apr 06 07:16:01 -0400 2011:

...

I guess a hack would be to check for a commit hash id we know exists in your conversion of the repo, which won't exist in my copy of it. If so, remove the repo and fetch again?

In that case, you should also check for local changes.

True, it'd be annoying to lose any work. Maybe just to die with instructions on how to proceed? This could be done in combination with warning everybody over the mailing lists too, obviously. Lennart