Re: A few technical suggestions

loneti...@gmail.com writes: > Hi All, > Sorry Tamar, it seems I overlooked this. > I wanted to give my own thoughts/suggestions for things we could do on the > short/medium term > To make things a bit better. As a whole I may be one of the few who likes the > current setup so I > Propose

Re: How, precisely, can we improve?

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > I've spent some time thinking about how and what to synthesize from this > conversation. Moritz has captured much of these ideas in the proposal he > submitted. Thanks. > > But that proposal tackles only one part

Re: Create a ghc-simple-patch-propose list? Re: Notes from Ben's "contribute to ghc" discussion

Thanks for the useful data point Mathieu. I think it should also be noted that GHC contributions spiked after switching to phabricator so it could just be the effect of moving to *some* code review tool. Could you perhaps summarise the salient points in the LLVM thread? It is very long with lots

Re: Create a ghc-simple-patch-propose list? Re: Notes from Ben's "contribute to ghc" discussion

Hi Richard! thanks for creating the pull request with a full proposal. You beat me to it - tried writing up much the same before stopping for dinner, essentially capturing just one of the points in Moritz's earlier (large) proposal. Moritz, I would encourage you like Richard did earlier to split

Re: How, precisely, can we improve?

I've spent some time thinking about how and what to synthesize from this conversation. Moritz has captured much of these ideas in the proposal he submitted. Thanks. But that proposal tackles only one part of the problem: what to do in the future. It does not address the insufficiencies of the

Re: Create a ghc-simple-patch-propose list? Re: Notes from Ben's "contribute to ghc" discussion

I have tried to gather the ideas from this thread into a formal proposal: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/11 Please feel free to make suggestions to improve this, especially if I've captured anyone's contributions incorrectly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Richard A. Eisenberg

Re: How, precisely, can we improve?

Hi Carter, Thank you very much :) We love haskell, Takenobu 2016-09-28 22:29 GMT+09:00 Carter Schonwald : > I like your perspective on this > > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Takenobu Tani > wrote: > >> Apologies if I’m missing context.

Re: Create a ghc-simple-patch-propose list? Re: Notes from Ben's "contribute to ghc" discussion

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Eric Seidel wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016, at 18:37, Ben Gamari wrote: > > Moritz Angermann > writes: > > > > > All that arc essentially does is, compute the diff from an offset > > > (e.g. master) to the

Re: How, precisely, can we improve?

Friends, after the recent discussion here and on #ghc, I’ve taken the liberty to extract a small part of this into a proposal[1]. In essence this does not cover *all* of the wiki, but the commentary and documentation part, after Herbert mentioned that would be something he could see happening.

Re: How, precisely, can we improve?

For me the biggest problem is that each of the three Wiki's has a different markup syntax. So the mental motivation to do anything is tempered by having to look up everything to make sure you are using the right markup for *this* Wiki. Reducing it to one, wherever it is, would help a lot. Alan

Re: How, precisely, can we improve?

On 2016-09-28 at 03:51:22 +0200, Richard Eisenberg wrote: [...] > Despite agreeing that wikis are sometimes wonky, I thought of a solid > reason against moving: we lose the Trac integration. A Trac wiki page > can easily link to tickets and individual comments, and can use > dynamic features

Re: Create a ghc-simple-patch-propose list? Re: Notes from Ben's "contribute to ghc" discussion

Hi, You can alter the content of a GitHub PR after its initial creation. The semantics of a PR is "please merge my branch named B into your repo" where the branch B is a mutable pointer to a commit. A workflow I've used a few times is to craft a nice sequence of commits for review and, once