Moving Haddock *development* out of GHC tree

Mateusz Kowalczyk fuuzetsu at
Fri Aug 8 15:07:55 UTC 2014

On 08/08/2014 09:48 AM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
> Mateusz
> What you say makes sense to me.
> For me, the big thing is that we can make, and push, changes to Haddock in the GHC private branch, without having to negotiate.  (Haddock reaches very deep into GHC's internals, so many many changes to GHC have some knock-on effect in Haddock.)  You seem OK with this, so I am too.

Nothing changes here except that GHC team no longer pushes to the branch
where actual feature dev goes on.

> One concern: if you and Simon pay no attention to the GHC HEAD fork of Haddock, there is no guarantee that it works at all.  Presumably it compiles (because GHC's build system will build it, forcing us to fix type errors) but it might not actually work!  So it would probably pay for you to watch what is happening, to ensure that the patch-ups that ignorant GHC developers apply to Haddock do indeed have the desired effect.  

GHC is still a user although with special needs. What I mean when I say
abandon is that I will not worry about having to port any new features
or non-critical fixes to the version that GHC. Of course if there is
Haddock breakage in GHC tree then I'll have a look at it and see what I
can do but the difference is that I only have to do it when things break
(if ever) rather than at any time I make a change.

> Some of these patch-ups might even be panics --- "I don't know how to make Haddock render new construct <foobar>".  That might be quite reasonable.
> But in general, thumbs up from me


> Simon
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces at] On Behalf Of
> | Mateusz Kowalczyk
> | Sent: 08 August 2014 06:25
> | To: ghc-devs at
> | Cc: Simon Hengel
> | Subject: Moving Haddock *development* out of GHC tree
> | 
> | Hello,
> | 
> [snip]

Mateusz K.

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list