Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@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.