2008/8/29 Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi all, > > I have a GHC tree that builds and uses haddock 6.10 during the build > process, and validates. > > David, as I understand it you want to avoid having a separate haddock > repo for GHC, right?
Yes, but I don't like the thought of having to validate GHC every time I push something. I think Neil's suggestion sounds good. With a separate branch, it's too easy for GHC developers too push something that's not compatible with earlier GHCs. > So currently what I've done is to make darcs-all > support absolute URLs in the packages file, e.g.: > > utils/haddock http://code.haskell.org/haddock darcs > > and push-all will not attempt to push to this repo (as the "remote path" > starts with "http:"). > > This puts haddock in a similar boat to Cabal, in that if you make > changes to it then you need to remember to push them specially. > Perhaps we should make push-all see if there are any local patches, and > shout loudly if there are? > > This does mean that any patches to the main haddock repo need to pass > validate. Also, can we add some GHC people to the haddock group on > community? Yes we can. Perhaps you can do it since you're administrating community and know which people it would be best to add? David _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
