2011/6/8 Simon Marlow :
> I think you need a separate development branch. The branches would
> therefore be:
>
> - stable: the one we ship with GHC releases
>
> - development: works with the latest GHC release, but has new
> Haddock development (fixes from stable merge in here)
>
> - master:
On 06/06/2011 23:28, David Waern wrote:
2011/6/6 Ian Lynagh:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 05:45:19PM +, David Waern wrote:
So I'd like to ask you if you'd be OK with this plan? You would all
need kill your local haddock2 clones and create new clones.
If we do this, let's do it at the same tim
2011/6/6 Ian Lynagh :
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 05:45:19PM +, David Waern wrote:
>>
>> So I'd like to ask you if you'd be OK with this plan? You would all
>> need kill your local haddock2 clones and create new clones.
>
> If we do this, let's do it at the same time as recreating the binary
> re
| > So I'd like to ask you if you'd be OK with this plan? You would all
| > need kill your local haddock2 clones and create new clones.
I'm ok with this. You're correct that the ghc-generics branch is now dead,
ditto ghc-new-co.
| > To stop the two repos from diverging again we could either
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 05:45:19PM +, David Waern wrote:
>
> So I'd like to ask you if you'd be OK with this plan? You would all
> need kill your local haddock2 clones and create new clones.
If we do this, let's do it at the same time as recreating the binary
repository.
> To stop the two re
Dear GHC developers,
perhaps you saw my mail about the Haddock repositories. The darcs repo
at http://code.haskell.org/haddock has diverged quite a bit from the
git repo at http://darcs.haskell.org/haddock2.git. The two
repositories were not in synch when the git conversion happened, which
makes i
