Validating with Haddock

[Austin Seipp]

Hi Mateusz,

I remember your email and I believe I responded with the OK at the
time - my impression was that it was ready to be merged and would
shortly be done after that, but I didn't hear anything back about it.
I apologize for my dropping the ball.

As for your actual error - ghc-paths is only used in Haddock when it's
not built in the GHC tree (as per the cabal file,) so I find it very
suspicious that your package check is mentioning it at all (it's not
mentioned anywhere else in any GHC sources.) Can you verify that it's
there with `./inplace/bin/ghc-pkg list`? I'm not even sure how it
could possibly get involved.

Finally, can you be more specific about exactly how you tested these
changes with your modified Haddock? I presume it was something like:

$ ... clone ghc source ...
$ cd ghc
$ ... get extra stuff with ./sync-all ...
$ cd utils/haddock
$ ... use git to grab your code from github ...
$ cd ../..
$ sh ./validate

But I'd like to make sure I know exactly what's going on. I can try
testing your branch later today.

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk
<fuuzetsu at fuuzetsu.co.uk> wrote:
> On 07/01/14 10:20, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
>> | David stepped down and Simon Marlow has a long time ago too! It is now
>> | Simon Hengel who maintains it.
>>
>> OK, well perhaps you can immediately push a change to haddock.cabal to reflect this?  That's how we know.
>
> I will try later but I think I don't have permissions. I can at best
> push to Simon's branch where he would periodically push to the GHC
> hosted repository (or perhaps it would get pulled from, I do not know).
>
>>
>> | Is it by now too late for 7.8? I'm afraid Simon H is away without much
>> | access to technology until the 20th.
>>
>> Realistically that would push 7.8 RC to the end of Jan.  Why would that be better than pushing to head just after the 7.8 release?  Will 7.8 users see a big improvement if it was in?  What do others think?
>
> The changes were mostly there for user benefit. The markup can now be
> escaped much better. If we can validate what's on Simon's new-parser
> branch reasonably quickly, we might even be able to push in the new
> features: new mark up, nested paragraphs, better lists, headers… I'm
> trying to push for 7.8 because Haddock ships with GHC and 7.8 is the
> stable release that everyone will be using in couple of months time. If
> the changes don't get into 7.8, we'll have to wait for the next stable
> release for the users to benefit. Is this incorrect? I was always under
> the impression that the only Haddock releases we can reasonably make are
> with stable GHC releases. Of course, anyone can compile HEAD and
> generate the docs for their own viewing but for example, Hackage will
> run stable compiler and all the docs will still be using old Haddock.
>
> I'd love to hear that I'm wrong about this and that Haddock releases
> separate from GHC are possible but I don't think that's the case.
>
>>
>> S
>>
>
>
> --
> Mateusz K.
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>



-- 
Regards,

Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/