Re-creation of haddock repo
david.waern at gmail.com
Tue Jun 7 00:28:59 CEST 2011
2011/6/6 Ian Lynagh <igloo at earth.li>:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 05:45:19PM +0000, David Waern wrote:
>> So I'd like to ask you if you'd be OK with this plan? You would all
>> need kill your local haddock2 clones and create new clones.
> If we do this, let's do it at the same time as recreating the binary
>> To stop the two repos from diverging again we could either kill the
>> darcs repo or forbid comitting directly to the git repo.
> In the darcs days, the two were intentionally diverging as the upstream
> repo was supporting the last stable GHC release, whereas the GHC HEAD
> repo needed to work with HEAD. How are we going to handle that now?
Now that we're using git I don't feel brave enough to continue with
the old scheme, where I tried to make things convenient for both
Haddock and GHC developers.
My proposal (which is the same as Ian has been advocating before):
* ditch the darcs repo and just make the GHC HEAD repo the new upstream
* upstream only needs to work with GHC HEAD
* stable branch is created when GHC is branched, as before
* haddock developers have to do new development with GHC HEAD
* haddock developers have to validate before pushing changes
* GHC developers can continue as before
* major releases would probably become tied to major GHC releases
This is definitely simpler. The downside is that things become less
convenient for Haddock developers and I fear that we'll get fewer
contributions. However I'm still in favor of this proposal because the
alternatives I've thought about feel too complicated.
Perhaps we can throw in another git repo if it becomes too much to
require developers to validate changes in the GHC build before
And we could try to relieve people's pain from having to use GHC HEAD
with some guide lines on the Haddock development wiki for how to
download, build and install it, and so on.
More information about the Cvs-ghc