Shall the Haskell Report remain in LaTeX?

[Herbert Valerio Riedel]

Hello *,

On 2017-09-08 at 00:46:52 +0200, Mario Blazevic wrote:

[...]

>> If the report was written in reStructuredText we could simply use
>> something like the readthedocs.org service. But since it's LaTeX, we
>> have to do a little bit more work to publishes ("deploys" in newspeak)
>> .pdf drafts somewhere else, but it's doable.
>>
>> I can take care to set it up, if it's clear what kind of CI/CD we want.

> Is the current publishing system really that difficult?

No, it's not that bad, it's just that there likely won't be a service
that'll work out of the box with GitHub integration like readthedocs...

> To my grizzled ears, this sounds like you're fishing for a volunteer
> to translate LaTeX to ReST. I'd actually be willing to do that, as I
> have plenty of experience with text transformations, but I'd need a
> buy-in from everybody.

...but I wouldn't go as far as to suggest this is reason enough to
translate the report into .rst

I guess I was rather trying to fish for some commitment that we want in
fact to stay with LaTeX; I was planning to pick up where I left things
in 2015 and clean up/refactor the TeX text and also investigate what our
current options are to generate state-of-the-art .pdf, .html and .epub
output. And I'd like to avoid this resulting a waste of effort in case
we decide to move away from LaTeX in the foreseeable future...

Long story short, is everyone ok to stay with (La)TeX, or is there some
compelling reason that would justify migrating to a different
documentation system?

-- hvr