Re: Gearing up (again) for the next release: 2014.2.0.0

On 03/04/14 13:48, Edward Kmett wrote:

haddock interoperates rather extremely closely with the ghc-api.

Pulling it out would make something that already seems to go a bit out of sync with each release that much harder to keep in sync.

It is also used to build the documentation for all the packages that ship with ghc out of the box. Pulled out I don't see a sane way to generate those docs.

-Edward

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:32 AM, harry wrote:

...

Jens Petersen wrote

...

...

*Haddock* - is there any reason not to use the version built and distributed with GHC 7.8?

from the package perspective also, +1 for continuing to use the haddock in ghc.

Perhaps Haddock shouldn't be included with GHC either, now that we have HP for the batteries included distribution?

-- View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Gearing-up-again-for-the-next-release-2... Sent from the Haskell - Libraries mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

Another downside is that it's up to Haddock maintainers to now very closely follow GHC changes rather than GHC HQ jumping in and fixing it up when they change the API. Ideally, I'd love to be able to not work as closely with GHC, it's quite a burden to have to keep up-to-date GHC versions and possible break GHC builds when we mess up but at the moment that's how it is. -- Mateusz K.