Takenobu Tani <takenobu.hs@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi devs,
>
> For myself and new contributors, I drew overview pictures about GHC
> development flow.
>
>   GHC development flow
>     http://takenobu-hs.github.io/downloads/ghc_development_flow.pdf
>     https://github.com/takenobu-hs/ghc-development-flow
>
Thanks Takenobu! This is quite helpful.

One minor inaccuracy I found was the spelling of "Arcanist" on page
12. Another is in the description of the ghc-proposals process on
page 9. Specifically, I think the proposal process should look more
like,

    write the proposal
           ↓
      pull request
           ↓
       discussion  ←┐ ←──┐
           ↓        │    │
    revise proposal ┘    │
           ↓             │
    request review       │
 by steering committee   │
           ↓             │
   wait for approval  ───┘
           ↓
     create ticket

Finally, I think it would be helpful if more attention could be given to
the bug reporting protocol depicted on page 8. In particular, users have
approached me in the past with questions about what the various ticket
states mean. Really, it's (fairly) simple,

 * New: The ticket is waiting for someone to look at it and/or
   discussion is underway on how to fix the issue

 * Assigned: Someone has said they are working on fixing the issue.

 * Patch: There is a patch to fix the issue that is awaiting review (it
   is typically listed in the "Differential Rev(s)"  field of the ticket.

 * Merge: A patch fixing the issue is present in the `master` branch and
   we are considering backporting it to the stable branch (e.g.
   currently the `ghc-8.0` branch).

 * Closed: As of the release listed in the "Milestone" field the bug is
   considered resolved.

I think a diagram describing this workflow could be quite helpful. Let
me know if I can help.

Cheers,

- Ben