Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> writes: > Hi Timothy, > >> One of the things I want to do this time is to do the upgrade in one >> mega commit. I’m pretty sure that some of the commits last time had >> inconsistent package sets, which is not ideal. I’m not sure how to >> avoid that upgrading one package at a time. Hence, my rough plan is to >> start by setting GHC 8.6 as the compiler for the build system, and then >> run the refresh script with Stackage LTS 14. After that, I will push >> the results to wip-haskell-updates and see how it goes. >> >> Ricardo, what do you think? Are we okay to take over >> wip-haskell-updates? Does a mega commit make sense or do you think >> that’s a bad idea? > > Yes, you can take over wip-haskell-updates. > > A single big commit is not a good idea, but you don’t really need it as > you’d merge the branch in one go, so Cuirass would not end up evaluating > any of the intermediate commits anyway. It’s still good to have smaller > commits to better undo individual changes and more easily understand > related changes.
AIUI individual updates cannot really be un-done, because that would break the entire dependency chain. I think it's OK to "squash" instances like this, both to clarify that the changes are in fact related, and to make bisecting less painful.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
