Simon, Ian OK, I have spent a much longer time than I intended editing our wiki pages. Can you look at
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Repositories http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Repositories/Upstream The former is supposed to be the summary; the latter focuses on upstream repos. They are supposed to subsume the current WorkingConventions/Repositories which I have not yet deleted. I'm not 100% sure of the yes/no in the columns. Thanks Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: Simon Marlow [mailto:marlo...@gmail.com] | Sent: 18 December 2012 16:40 | To: Simon Peyton-Jones | Cc: Jan Stolarek; Ian Lynagh; glasgow-haskell-us...@haskell.org | Subject: Re: How to start with GHC development? | | On 18/12/12 15:51, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: | > | > It seems that many informations in the wiki are duplicated. There | > | > are two pages about | > | > repositories: | > | > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Repositories | > | > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/WorkingConventions/Reposi | > | > tori es (after reading the first one source tree started to make | > | > much more sense - this is one of the informations *I* would like | > | > to get first). | > | | > | The first page lists the repositories and where the upstreams and | > | mirrors are. The second page contains the conventions for working | > | on other repositories (which is why it's under WorkingConventions). | > | > Simon, I don't find that a clear distinction. Looking at the two, I'm | a bit confused too! | | So Repositories is "what repositories there are", and | WorkingConventions/Repositories is "how to work on them". Isn't that a | clear distinction? | | > * The lists on WorkingConventions/Repositories duplicates the table in | Repositories. | | There are two separate workflows, so we have to say which libraries each | workflow applies to. I'd be fine with merging this info with the other | table - it might be slightly more awkward having the info on a separate | page, but there would be only one list of repositories. | | > * I believe that perhaps WorkingConventions/Repositories is solely | concerned with how to *modify* a library; it opening para says as much. | Fine; but it shouldn't duplicate the info. | | Right. | | > Maybe the table could do with a column saying "GHC" or "Upstream" to | specify the "how to modify" convention? (I wish the table could somehow | be narrower. And that the library name was the first column.) Perhaps | the master table can look like this: | > | > What GHC repo location Upstream repo exists? | > http://darcs.haskell.org/ | > | > GHC ghc.git | > ghc-tarballs ghc-tarballs.git | > ...etc... | > binary binary.git YES | > ...etc... | > | > Then we can deal with the complexities of upstream repos in another | page. I think that might put the info in a way that's easier to grok. | I can do it if Simon and Ian agree; or Ian could. | | Ok by me. | | Cheers, | Simon _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list Cvs-ghc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
