Moving Haddock *development* out of GHC tree

Herbert Valerio Riedel hvriedel at
Fri Aug 8 08:35:44 UTC 2014

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'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".

Just a minor nitpick (but I agree with having `master` used for hosting
active Haddock development): "latest code" might not be a canonical
concept, as there will be "latest code that works with GHC HEAD", and
"latest code that works with last released GHC"

> 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`.

I'd rather reduce the number of doubled repositories (not the least to
simplify the mirroring setup) to avoid confusion about where things
live/need to be pushed to.

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, and have GHC HEAD
developers push to that instead (fwiw, you can specify the default
branch in .gitmodules, which some few Git tools honor).


More information about the ghc-devs mailing list