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... :-)

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#successful-proposals ? 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. 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.

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

well sure, i'm happy to write the 3 line diff, but because of the sheer unambiguity of this i'd rather get the votes on email before botthering to write the diff, at which point the main question is whether i wrote the diff correctly please say yes or no. its quite easy with email . i'm not going to write that little proposal if folks wont accept it :) On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Mario Blazevic wrote:

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

...

I don't mean to be a killjoy, but I think even something as simple as this should have a proposal. We still have to draft the changes to the Report associated with this change, and at least one is non-obvious: now numeric literals induce an Eq constraint (which should be mentioned). I'm certainly not against this change, but I don't think it's as easy as this.

I agree. I just I thought it was implicit that every change to the report goes throught a pull request, which is the same as a proposal. Were you volunteering for something else, Carter?