Moving Haddock *development* out of GHC tree
Herbert Valerio Riedel
hvriedel at gmail.com
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 github.com/haddock.git'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
> http://git.haskell.org/haddock.git for GHC development and
> https://github.com/haskell/haddock 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 github.com/haskell/haddock.git, 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