On 2014-08-08 at 09:42:14 +0200, Simon Hengel wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 09:00:21AM +0200, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Just to clarify, as the last sentence contains a double-negation: GHC devs continue pushing to github.com/haddock.git's `master` branch to keep Haddock building with GHC HEAD? It's just that the Haddock development proper happens in a branch other than `master` from now on?
From my perspective I would prefer to use `master` for Haddock development and use a branch with some other name for GHC development. My main motivation here is that as a contributor to Haddock "I expect the latest code to be on `master`, and I would use it as a base when developing new features".
Just a minor nitpick (but I agree with having `master` used for hosting active Haddock development): "latest code" might not be a canonical concept, as there will be "latest code that works with GHC HEAD", and "latest code that works with last released GHC"
Alternatively, maybe use `master` for both Haddock and GHC development, but push to different remotes (say use http://git.haskell.org/haddock.git for GHC development and https://github.com/haskell/haddock for Haddock development). I think this is what we already do for e.g. `containers`.
I'd rather reduce the number of doubled repositories (not the least to simplify the mirroring setup) to avoid confusion about where things live/need to be pushed to. If this is just an alpha-conversion modulo thing, then let's just call the new branch for GHC HEAD simply `ghc-head` (or something like that) and keep hosting it in github.com/haskell/haddock.git, and have GHC HEAD developers push to that instead (fwiw, you can specify the default branch in .gitmodules, which some few Git tools honor). Cheers, hvr