david.waern at gmail.com
Fri Aug 29 13:39:08 EDT 2008
2008/8/29 Ian Lynagh <igloo at earth.li>:
> Hi all,
> I have a GHC tree that builds and uses haddock 6.10 during the build
> process, and validates.
> David, as I understand it you want to avoid having a separate haddock
> repo for GHC, right?
Yes, but I don't like the thought of having to validate GHC every time
I push something. I think Neil's suggestion sounds good. With a
separate branch, it's too easy for GHC developers too push something
that's not compatible with earlier GHCs.
> So currently what I've done is to make darcs-all
> support absolute URLs in the packages file, e.g.:
> utils/haddock http://code.haskell.org/haddock darcs
> and push-all will not attempt to push to this repo (as the "remote path"
> starts with "http:").
> This puts haddock in a similar boat to Cabal, in that if you make
> changes to it then you need to remember to push them specially.
> Perhaps we should make push-all see if there are any local patches, and
> shout loudly if there are?
> This does mean that any patches to the main haddock repo need to pass
> validate. Also, can we add some GHC people to the haddock group on
Yes we can. Perhaps you can do it since you're administrating
community and know which people it would be best to add?
More information about the Cvs-ghc