On 2014-08-08 at 09:42:14 +0200, Simon Hengel wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 09:00:21AM +0200, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: >> Just to clarify, as the last sentence contains a double-negation: GHC >> devs continue pushing to github.com/haddock.git's `master` branch to >> keep Haddock building with GHC HEAD? It's just that the Haddock >> development proper happens in a branch other than `master` from now on? > > From my perspective I would prefer to use `master` for Haddock > development and use a branch with some other name for GHC development. > My main motivation here is that as a contributor to Haddock "I expect > the latest code to be on `master`, and I would use it as a base when > developing new features".
Just a minor nitpick (but I agree with having `master` used for hosting active Haddock development): "latest code" might not be a canonical concept, as there will be "latest code that works with GHC HEAD", and "latest code that works with last released GHC" > Alternatively, maybe use `master` for both Haddock and GHC development, > but push to different remotes (say use > http://git.haskell.org/haddock.git for GHC development and > https://github.com/haskell/haddock for Haddock development). I think > this is what we already do for e.g. `containers`. I'd rather reduce the number of doubled repositories (not the least to simplify the mirroring setup) to avoid confusion about where things live/need to be pushed to. If this is just an alpha-conversion modulo thing, then let's just call the new branch for GHC HEAD simply `ghc-head` (or something like that) and keep hosting it in github.com/haskell/haddock.git, and have GHC HEAD developers push to that instead (fwiw, you can specify the default branch in .gitmodules, which some few Git tools honor). Cheers, hvr _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
