Minor doc patch for ghc 7.10 + did I submit the patch correctly/follow the process?

Thomas Miedema thomasmiedema at gmail.com
Tue Mar 17 23:04:14 UTC 2015

Hi Doug,

thank you for describing the steps you took to submit a code review.
That's quite useful. Your patch looks good too.

> b) ask if I did this the right way; I'm happy to write this up as an
> addendum to the newcomers guide/something else on the wiki if it is a
> sensible path for a doc-only patch

Those steps you mention seem about right. Only this would have gotten
you there somewhat sooner:

I don't think that the Newcomers page should have to mention that
specific link however, because:
1. almost all patches are made for the master branch. That release
notes file could be the only exception.
2. the wiki contains a lot of information that would be useful to read
for newcomers, but we can't link to all of them
3. there is already a link to
4. you proved you could make it happen without it

Other things you mentioned:
> 1) I did not create a ticket; should I have done so?

Just a Phabricator code review is ok for small patches. Since we
started using Phabricator, quite a few patches have been submitted and
accepted without a ticket number. This workflow is however not
mentioned on the wiki yet.

> downloading the submodules seems excessive for a doc-only patch
Maybe, but it's also more simple to just have one explanation for how
to get the sources instead of two. But if you think the Newcomers page
could be improved, please feel free to edit it.


P.S. The Newcomers page makes you download from Github to prevent
git.haskell.org from becomming overloaded when the Newcomers page gets
linked from reddit.

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list