Hello Herbert,
I think the pre-commit hook needs to be adjusted; I used to have
push rights on master, but I cannot seem to push to ghc-head.
Thanks,
Edward
Excerpts from Herbert Valerio Riedel's message of 2014-08-16 16:34:46 +0100:
On 2014-08-16 at 16:59:51 +0200, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
On 08/25/2014 01:21 PM, Alan Kim Zimmerman wrote:
What happens in the case of a change to the dev branch of ghc that requires
a patch to haddock as well, how does that patch get added to phabricator,
or is there a separate process?
A case in point is https://phabricator.haskell.org/D157
Ok thanks.
I am travelling at the moment, will try this in a few days.
Alan
On 26 Aug 2014 11:23 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk fuuze...@fuuzetsu.co.uk
wrote:
On 08/25/2014 01:21 PM, Alan Kim Zimmerman wrote:
What happens in the case of a change to the dev branch of ghc that
requires
a patch to
On 08/15/2014 04:32 PM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
Great. Please can what you do be documented clearly somewhere, with a link to
that documentation from here
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Repositories, and/or somewhere else
suitable?
Thanks
Simon
Nothing on that page needs
On 2014-08-16 at 16:59:51 +0200, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
[...]
Herbert kindly updated the sync-all script that
defaults to the new branch so I think we're covered.
Minor correction: I did not touch the sync-all script at all. I merely
declared a default branch in the .gitmodules file:
] On Behalf Of
| Mateusz Kowalczyk
| Sent: 13 August 2014 23:10
| To: ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Moving Haddock *development* out of GHC tree
|
| On 08/08/2014 06:25 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
| Hello,
|
| [snip]
|
| Transition from current setup:
| If I receive some patches I
On 08/14/2014 01:43 AM, Carter Schonwald wrote:
one thing I wonder about is how should we approach noting
theres a new language constructor, we should figure out a good way to
present it in haddock in this work flow?
because the initial haddocks presentation might just be a strawman till
good points by all :)
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk fuuze...@fuuzetsu.co.uk
wrote:
On 08/14/2014 01:43 AM, Carter Schonwald wrote:
one thing I wonder about is how should we approach noting
theres a new language constructor, we should figure out a good way to
On 08/13/2014 11:09 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
On 08/08/2014 06:25 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
Hello,
[snip]
Transition from current setup:
If I receive some patches I was promised then I will then make a 2.14.4
bugfix/compat release make sure that master is up to date and then
create
On 08/08/2014 06:25 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
Hello,
[snip]
Transition from current setup:
If I receive some patches I was promised then I will then make a 2.14.4
bugfix/compat release make sure that master is up to date and then
create something like GHC-tracking branch from master
one thing I wonder about is how should we approach noting
theres a new language constructor, we should figure out a good way to
present it in haddock in this work flow?
because the initial haddocks presentation might just be a strawman till
someone thinks about it carefully right?
On Wed, Aug
Hi Mateusz,
I'm mostly interested in understanding the Git-level/workflow changes,
so here's a few questions to improve my understanding of what's changing
related to Git:
On 2014-08-08 at 07:25:01 +0200, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
[...]
I do all the work and I think it's a 1 line change in
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 09:00:21AM +0200, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Just to clarify, as the last sentence contains a double-negation: GHC
devs continue pushing to github.com/haddock.git's `master` branch to
keep Haddock building with GHC HEAD? It's just that the Haddock
development proper
reasonable.
But in general, thumbs up from me
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
The biggest disadvantage in my mind is that you're setting yourself up for
a potentially huge merge just before the GHC release and might block the
GHC release until that merge is done (assuming that haddock is still
shipped with GHC).
___
ghc-devs
: ghc-devs@haskell.org; Simon Hengel
Subject: Re: Moving Haddock *development* out of GHC tree
The biggest disadvantage in my mind is that you're setting yourself up for a
potentially huge merge just before the GHC release and might block the GHC
release until that merge is done (assuming
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Simon Peyton Jones simo...@microsoft.com
wrote:
The biggest disadvantage in my mind is that you're setting yourself up
for a potentially huge merge just before the GHC release and might block
the GHC release until that merge is done (assuming that haddock is
I thought this was what you were already doing :-) Anyway, this is more
or less the setup we had in mind when Haddock was added to the GHC tree.
The only question is which branches are used for GHC and for regular
development, and where they live. As long as that's clear for everyone
(both
On 2014-08-08 at 09:42:14 +0200, Simon Hengel wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 09:00:21AM +0200, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Just to clarify, as the last sentence contains a double-negation: GHC
devs continue pushing to github.com/haddock.git's `master` branch to
keep Haddock building with GHC
I'm also in favour of a more decoupled development/release process. I'd
like to change a few things in haddock to make it more suitable for use as
a library, so that I can set up a haddock for GHCJS without duplicating the
whole package (it needs a custom platform setup and some changes in file
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 10:35:44AM +0200, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
If this is just an alpha-conversion modulo thing, then let's just call
the new branch for GHC HEAD simply `ghc-head` (or something like that)
and keep hosting it in github.com/haskell/haddock.git, and have GHC HEAD
On 08/08/2014 10:35 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
On 2014-08-08 at 09:42:14 +0200, Simon Hengel wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 09:00:21AM +0200, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Just to clarify, as the last sentence contains a double-negation: GHC
devs continue pushing to
On 08/08/2014 10:15 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Simon Peyton Jones simo...@microsoft.com
wrote:
The biggest disadvantage in my mind is that you're setting yourself up
for a potentially huge merge just before the GHC release and might block
the GHC release
On 08/08/2014 10:18 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
I thought this was what you were already doing :-) Anyway, this is more
or less the setup we had in mind when Haddock was added to the GHC tree.
The only question is which branches are used for GHC and for regular
development, and where they
Hello,
A slightly long e-mail but I ask that you voice your opinion if you ever
changed GHC API. You can skim over the details, simply know that it
saves me vast amount of time, allows me to try and find contributors and
doesn't impact GHC negatively. It seems like a win-win scenario for GHC
and
25 matches
Mail list logo
