Perl 6 - the future is here, just unevenly distributed

IRC log for #darcs, 2016-01-26

| Channels | #darcs index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
00:04 Riastradh joined #darcs
01:50 Big_G joined #darcs
03:17 Big_G joined #darcs
08:48 gh_ joined #darcs
08:52 gh_ Heffalump, hmm..
09:04 gh_ http://www.stackage.org/lts-5.0 darcs 2.10.2 is part of stackage lts 5!
12:29 mizu_no_oto joined #darcs
14:11 sm gh_: right you are
14:14 gh_ hi sm
14:18 sm phew.. FrontPage updated
14:21 sm gh_: add it to News there, or will you do it as part of 2.10.3 ?
14:23 sm bbl
14:37 gh_ sm, I will just announce 2.10.3 when it's released
15:04 gh_ sm, thanks for adding the slack build instructions
15:19 gal_bolle joined #darcs
17:08 Riastradh joined #darcs
17:31 lispy joined #darcs
18:50 Heffalump straw poll: should I submit the core of my refactoring of rebase in one big patch or several smaller patches that introduce temporary code (utility functions, type classes etc) that I then remove in later patches. I wrote it the latter way, and it might make it easier to track down any bugs introduced, but it might seem a bit weird in the history.
19:11 sm Heffalump: sounds good to me.. (small reviewable patches, even if they are soon removed)
20:01 gh_ joined #darcs
20:02 gh_ Heffalump, +1 for smaller patches
21:36 Heffalump note that in some cases it might involve changing code to add a typeclass restriction and then changing it back again
21:36 Heffalump thus creating more potential conflicts/dependencies
21:40 gh_ joined #darcs
21:47 sm hmm. dependencies ok but repo-slowing conflicts bad ?
21:49 gh_ to be clearer, I'm in favor of the road that I can better understand (in terms of code review) and I'm assuming that smaller patches would be. now I'm less sure.
21:54 gh_ sm, I guess conflicts would be wrt branch-2.10 or other people's contributions to screened

| Channels | #darcs index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary