RE: How to start with GHC development?

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:[email protected]]
| Sent: 18 December 2012 16:40
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: Jan Stolarek; Ian Lynagh; [email protected]
| 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