On 08/08/2014 09:48 AM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote: > Mateusz > > What you say makes sense to me. > > For me, the big thing is that we can make, and push, changes to Haddock in > the GHC private branch, without having to negotiate. (Haddock reaches very > deep into GHC's internals, so many many changes to GHC have some knock-on > effect in Haddock.) You seem OK with this, so I am too.
Nothing changes here except that GHC team no longer pushes to the branch where actual feature dev goes on. > One concern: if you and Simon pay no attention to the GHC HEAD fork of > Haddock, there is no guarantee that it works at all. Presumably it compiles > (because GHC's build system will build it, forcing us to fix type errors) but > it might not actually work! So it would probably pay for you to watch what > is happening, to ensure that the patch-ups that ignorant GHC developers apply > to Haddock do indeed have the desired effect. GHC is still a user although with special needs. What I mean when I say abandon is that I will not worry about having to port any new features or non-critical fixes to the version that GHC. Of course if there is Haddock breakage in GHC tree then I'll have a look at it and see what I can do but the difference is that I only have to do it when things break (if ever) rather than at any time I make a change. > Some of these patch-ups might even be panics --- "I don't know how to make > Haddock render new construct <foobar>". That might be quite reasonable. > > But in general, thumbs up from me Great! > > Simon > > | -----Original Message----- > | From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of > | Mateusz Kowalczyk > | Sent: 08 August 2014 06:25 > | To: ghc-devs@haskell.org > | Cc: Simon Hengel > | Subject: Moving Haddock *development* out of GHC tree > | > | Hello, > | > [snip] -- Mateusz K. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
