Sending to the mailing list instead of to Herbert alone... On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvrie...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello! > > On 2017-09-07 at 18:16:39 +0200, Mario Blazevic wrote: > >> Btw, here's an old commit which updates the class diagram to this > >> effect for the report: > >> > >> https://github.com/hvr/haskell-report/commit/ > >> 339ea257ee8b0451fbba388480566efac6ecbbd3 > >> > > Ha, I wasn't aware of that repository. > > I set up the hvr/haskell-report fork[1] shortly after I migrated and set > up the haskell/haskell-report repo back in 2015 to serve as an "updated" > inofficial Haskell201x report... > > While looking through the report it became apparent to me that more > updates may be needed, and that a new Haskell Prime committee was needed > because such an inofficial Haskell report wouldn't provide the desired > authority of a properly produced language standard, and you know the > rest... :-) > That looks farsighted for sure. > > We agreed today to move the report itself to the > > https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/ repository. > > Ok, so how does this change the procedure described at > > https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/blob/master/README.rst#succe > ssful-proposals > > ? > I think the only necessary change is to the strangely worded clause - No one is appointed responsible for actually implementing the change, in particular neither the shepherd nor the author of the proposal. I'd go with some alternative wording like - The successful proposal should include a complete delta to the text of The Haskell Report that can be automatically merged. > > And what is the intended relationship between the haskell/rfcs and the > haskell/haskell-report repos? > > > Should we move the build system around it as well? I'd say probably > > not, leave the haskell/haskell-report repository the canonical one and > > update it from haskell/rfcs/ once we're ready to publish. > > Well, depends... the build-system is a bit incomplete as it only tests > that TeX still builds, the intention was to provide a CI system which > publishes its draft aftifacts somewhere for convenient previewing. And > if I understand this correctly, you intend to have RFCs be accompanied > by deltas to the report in the same repository; and if that's the case I > think the build-system makes a lot of sense to duplicate in the > haskell/rfcs repo. > I'm not familiar with the build system, so I'll trust your judgement on this. The only reason for my earlier choice is that haskell/haskell-report sounds like a proper cannonical place for the official Haskell Report, much more so than haskell/rfcs. > 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? 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. > > I wish GitHub made it possible to symlink files in two repositories > > like this. > > I wouldn't worry too much about that... we can cross that bridge when > we're close to a report worth publishing :-) > > Cheers, > HVR >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime