On 03/28/2015 04:27 PM, Randy Polen wrote:
Mateusz,
Haddock issue #285 indeed sounds like a win (or Win-dows).
A logistical wrinkle I worry about for the short-term is that
the HP uses the GHC release, and haddock is part of that release. I can certainly
incorporate a newer haddock, but I want to mention this GHC-related release
issue in case others here have a better approach for this part of the plan (e.g.,
"yes, go ahead and augment GHC 7.10.1 release with a custom haddock" or
"no, let's spin up a 7.10.1.1 (?)").
There is also the Cabal piece as well, but that is separate from GHC and thus
a bit easier to incorporate into the HP build.
Randy
We cut a Haddock release when GHC comes out so that it's easy to track versions but that's simply to try to keep some sanity when users report --version. But there is nothing stopping us from releasing a new Haddock version without forcing a GHC release. If I release 2.16.1 tomorrow with the argument list thing, you can just cabal install install it. As long as your system knows to look into binaries built through cabal first and binaries shipped with GHC second, you'll be golden. For HP purposes, you probably want to ship 2.16.1 (or whatever version) when that comes out because tools like cabal-install depend on the version number to determine what features (such as response files) are available. I don't have a date for next point release. Do you have a date for HP? -- Mateusz K.