2011/6/8 Simon Marlow <[email protected]>: > I think you need a separate development branch. The branches would > therefore be: > > - stable: the one we ship with GHC releases > > - development: works with the latest GHC release, but has new > Haddock development (fixes from stable merge in here) > > - master: works with GHC HEAD, merges from development > > Then I think everyone is happy. Haddock development happens on the > development branch and doesn't need GHC HEAD, we can keep the master branch > working with GHC HEAD, and we merge from development into master from time > to time.
I like this proposal. This is actually more like what Ian has proposed before. We'll have to do a bit of merging but it's probably worth it if we can continue to develop with a stable GHC version. They way I understand it we'd also be tying Haddock major releases to the GHC release cycle, but that's OK with me. I'll put a git repository on http://code.haskell.org/haddock with these branches, and backup the darcs repository somewhere, and you'll decide when you want to switch? David _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
