On 24/08/2009 15:49, Isaac Dupree wrote:
- which is the latest GHC patch that we need?
The ghc-patch that I sent you a couple days ago. It's a relatively
simple patch; you should review it and tell me if I should amend it
somehow.
Alternatively, if we wanted to integrate the Haddock work but not
change GHC for this release, we could bump the lex/parse/rename
version-checks in the Haddock patches to >= 613
here is all the latest patches for GHC and Haddock. Unpull/rollback the
last Haddock patch if you want to test *with* the patches to GHC HEAD. I
can't get cvs-ghc to accept any patches, so I put them online in
http://isaac.cedarswampstudios.org/2009/haddock-related-patches/
in particular,
current GHC patches:
http://isaac.cedarswampstudios.org/2009/haddock-related-patches/isaacs-GHC-lexParseRenameMove.dpatch
The GHC patches look fine, with one wibble: HsDocString should be a newtype.
I'm happy for this to go into 6.12.1, if we can get everything aligned.
I can't actually apply your patch, because you have various patches
called things like IDRAFT1 in the context - what are those?
current Haddock patches including last-patch-that-may-be-rollbacked:
http://isaac.cedarswampstudios.org/2009/haddock-related-patches/isaacs-Haddock-patches-with-bump.dpatch
I'll let David comment on those. I presume that Haddock will continue
to build with older GHCs too?
So I suggest we proceed as follows:
- get a set of GHC/Haddock patches that I can apply and test
- push the Haddock patches to Haddock HEAD (will break Haddock with
GHC HEAD, but it still works with 6.10.x).
- I pull the Haddock patches and test with the GHC patches
- I push the GHC/Haddock patches to GHC and GHC's Haddock branch
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
