Moving Haddock *development* out of GHC tree

[Carter Schonwald]

one thing I wonder about is how should we approach noting
 "theres a new language constructor, we should figure out a good way to
present it in haddock" in this work flow?
because the initial haddocks presentation might just be a strawman till
someone thinks about it carefully right?


On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvriedel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2014-08-14 at 00:09:40 +0200, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I don't know what the GHC branch name will be yet. ‘ghc-head’ makes most
> > sense but IIRC Herbert had some objections as it had been used in the
> > past for something else, but maybe he can pitch in.
>
> I had no objections at all to that name, 'ghc-head' is fine with me :-)
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20140813/9861a45a/attachment.html>