<div dir="ltr">Sending to the mailing list instead of to Herbert alone...<br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hvriedel@gmail.com" target="_blank">hvriedel@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello!<br>
<span class="m_2656930812140257606gmail-"><br>
On 2017-09-07 at 18:16:39 +0200, Mario Blazevic wrote:<br>
>> Btw, here's an old commit which updates the class diagram to this<br>
>> effect for the report:<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="https://github.com/hvr/haskell-report/commit/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/hvr/haskell<wbr>-report/commit/</a><br>
>> 339ea257ee8b0451fbba388480566e<wbr>fac6ecbbd3<br>
>><br>
> Ha, I wasn't aware of that repository.<br>
<br>
</span>I set up the hvr/haskell-report fork[1] shortly after I migrated and set<br>
up the haskell/haskell-report repo back in 2015 to serve as an "updated"<br>
inofficial Haskell201x report...<br>
<br>
While looking through the report it became apparent to me that more<br>
updates may be needed, and that a new Haskell Prime committee was needed<br>
because such an inofficial Haskell report wouldn't provide the desired<br>
authority of a properly produced language standard, and you know the<br>
rest... :-)<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>That looks farsighted for sure.<br> <br><br></div><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span class="m_2656930812140257606gmail-"><br>
> We agreed today to move the report itself to the<br>
> <a href="https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/haskell/rfc<wbr>s/</a> repository.<br>
<br>
</span>Ok, so how does this change the procedure described at<br>
<br>
<a href="https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/blob/master/README.rst#successful-proposals" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/haskell/rfc<wbr>s/blob/master/README.rst#succe<wbr>ssful-proposals</a><br>
<br>
?<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I think the only necessary change is to the strangely worded clause<br><ul><li>No one is appointed responsible for actually implementing the change, in
particular neither the shepherd nor the author of the proposal.</li></ul><p>I'd go with some alternative wording like<br></p><ul><li>The successful proposal should include a complete delta to the text of The Haskell Report that can be automatically merged.<br></li></ul></div><span class=""><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
And what is the intended relationship between the haskell/rfcs and the<br>
haskell/haskell-report repos?<br>
<span class="m_2656930812140257606gmail-"><br>
> Should we move the build system around it as well? I'd say probably<br>
> not, leave the haskell/haskell-report repository the canonical one and<br>
> update it from haskell/rfcs/ once we're ready to publish.<br>
<br>
</span>Well, depends... the build-system is a bit incomplete as it only tests<br>
that TeX still builds, the intention was to provide a CI system which<br>
publishes its draft aftifacts somewhere for convenient previewing. And<br>
if I understand this correctly, you intend to have RFCs be accompanied<br>
by deltas to the report in the same repository; and if that's the case I<br>
think the build-system makes a lot of sense to duplicate in the<br>
haskell/rfcs repo.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I'm not familiar with the build system, so I'll trust your judgement on this. The only reason for my earlier choice is that haskell/haskell-report sounds like a proper cannonical place for the official Haskell Report, much more so than haskell/rfcs.<br><br></div><span class=""><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
If the report was written in reStructuredText we could simply use<br>
something like the <a href="http://readthedocs.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">readthedocs.org</a> service. But since it's LaTeX, we<br>
have to do a little bit more work to publishes ("deploys" in newspeak)<br>
.pdf drafts somewhere else, but it's doable.<br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I can take care to set it up, if it's clear what kind of CI/CD we want.<br></blockquote></span><div><br>Is the current publishing system really that difficult? To my grizzled ears, this sounds like you're fishing for a volunteer to translate LaTeX to ReST. I'd actually be willing to do that, as I have plenty of experience with text transformations, but I'd need a buy-in from everybody.<br><br><br></div><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span class="m_2656930812140257606gmail-"><br>
> I wish GitHub made it possible to symlink files in two repositories<br>
> like this.<br>
<br>
</span>I wouldn't worry too much about that... we can cross that bridge when<br>
we're close to a report worth publishing :-)<br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Cheers,<br>
HVR<br>
</blockquote></span></div><br><br></div></div>
</div><br></div></div></div>