Notes from Ben's "contribute to ghc" discussion

Joachim Breitner mail at
Sat Sep 24 23:53:31 UTC 2016


Am Samstag, den 24.09.2016, 18:46 -0500 schrieb Christopher Allen:
> Seems reasonable, but much of the consternation over GHC dev process
> has been about the relative illegibility of it, even for working
> programmers who've hacked on compilers before. It's concerning to see
> a list of items about a "contribute to GHC" discussion that seemingly
> includes nothing that addresses this.
> Can you point me to any discussions among GHC devs on this since the
> last time it was raised?

I’m not sure why this proposal is causing unease here? Regular
contributors are contributors too!

Also, the idea of accepting trivial commits via GitHub (which are then
pushed by someone with commit access) works much better if the latter
can be done efficient, i.e. in a fire-and-forget, but still safe and
checked, mode.

And the list does include a few things that are meant to help new
 * Accepting contributions where a quick review suffices via 
   GitHub (that’s the item “lightweight pushes”).
 * Not imposing style guides that people have to learn first
 * Docker images to quickly get started.
 * Easier ways of learning about GHC development (by removing old docs,
   and leverating SO).

That list is not meant to be exhaustive, if you have other ideas how to
make GHC hacking more accessible, please tell us!

I am under the impression that there is some misunderstanding here,
because there really is nothing not be wound up about here.


Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de
  XMPP: nomeata at • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
  Debian Developer: nomeata at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list