Moving Haddock *development* out of GHC tree

Simon Hengel sol at
Fri Aug 8 07:42:14 UTC 2014

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's `master` branch to
> keep Haddock building with GHC HEAD? It's just that the Haddock
> development proper happens in a branch other than `master` from now on?

>From my perspective I would prefer to use `master` for Haddock
development and use a branch with some other name for GHC development.
My main motivation here is that as a contributor to Haddock "I expect
the latest code to be on `master`, and I would use it as a base when
developing new features".

Alternatively, maybe use `master` for both Haddock and GHC development,
but push to different remotes (say use for GHC development and for Haddock development).  I think
this is what we already do for e.g. `containers`.


More information about the ghc-devs mailing list