[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       darcs-devel
Subject:    Re: [darcs-devel] darcs 2.16 TODOs
From:       Ben Franksen <ben.franksen () online ! de>
Date:       2020-05-10 17:41:25
Message-ID: r99ec5$118g$1 () ciao ! gmane ! io
[Download RAW message or body]

Am 10.05.20 um 18:17 schrieb Ganesh Sittampalam:
> As Ben rightly suggested we should push for a 2.16 release soon, I
> thought it'd be useful to start compiling a list of TODO items. We can
> also classify them into must-have/nice-to-have or similar.
> 
> Here's my initial list:

I think this sums it up pretty well.

> - Rename 'new-style-rebase-in-progress' to something else
> (rebase-in-progress-2.16?)

Sigh. I really wish we could dispense with this format alltogether but i
guess there is no other way to make older darcs versions fail here.

"rebase-in-progress-2.16" is okay. Can we keep support for
"new-style-rebase-in-progress" as a (read-only) alias, at least until
darcs-3.0? Or is that too much hassle?

> - Get to an acceptable state with unsuspending conflicts/resolutions

It's a bit unfortunate that this will hold us back but that can't be helped.

I made some progress with rebase squash: I successfully used it on
patch2017 and it worked as expected. However, the handling of
dependencies, including intermediate NameFixups, is not yet satisfying.
Before I spend more effort on that, I'd like to hear your view on my
proposal to warn about dropped dependencies early.

> - Go through the outstanding review backlog
>    - There's one patch in screened (I think to do with convert) that
> breaks a test on Windows

I haven't looked at the list for a while. Will do and see if I can do
some more review.

> - Get the 2.14.4/support ghc 8.8+8.10 patches merged

The main question here is whether to rebase the conflicts or not. I tend
to keep them as they are (i.e. conflicted) as that will make it easier
to exchange patches between the 2.14 and 2.16 branches, should that be
necessary. OTOH, it might come back to hurt us because of the bugs in V2.

> - document "darcs-3" format appropriately so that people don't use it by
> mistake

It's good you thought about that one, I agree this is important. But
perhaps we should make this change (only) on branch-2.16?

_______________________________________________
darcs-devel mailing list
darcs-devel@osuosl.org
https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]