Sending to the mailing list instead of to Herbert alone...
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvriedel(a)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
>
