Moving Haddock *development* out of GHC tree

Mateusz Kowalczyk fuuzetsu at
Fri Aug 8 15:16:07 UTC 2014

On 08/08/2014 10:18 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
> I thought this was what you were already doing :-)  Anyway, this is more 
> or less the setup we had in mind when Haddock was added to the GHC tree. 
>   The only question is which branches are used for GHC and for regular 
> development, and where they live.  As long as that's clear for everyone 
> (both Haddock and GHC developers), then this should be fine.

I think there is no problem if they both live in the existing repository
( or whatever the submodule refers to today.

> The GHC release engineer will need to give the Haddock maintainers 
> plenty of heads-up time before a release so that the merge can be done - 
> Austin could you add that to the release checklist?

Right, although I don't exactly plan to abandon any of the GHC
information channels I'm on today: I tend to be well aware of a release

> Cheers,
> Simon

Mateusz K.

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list