On 08/08/2014 10:18 AM, Simon Marlow wrote: > I thought this was what you were already doing :-) Anyway, this is more > or less the setup we had in mind when Haddock was added to the GHC tree. > The only question is which branches are used for GHC and for regular > development, and where they live. As long as that's clear for everyone > (both Haddock and GHC developers), then this should be fine.
I think there is no problem if they both live in the existing repository (github.com/haskell/haddock) or whatever the submodule refers to today. > The GHC release engineer will need to give the Haddock maintainers > plenty of heads-up time before a release so that the merge can be done - > Austin could you add that to the release checklist? Right, although I don't exactly plan to abandon any of the GHC information channels I'm on today: I tend to be well aware of a release coming. > Cheers, > Simon > -- Mateusz K. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs