Re: How to start with GHC development?

I like it, the table is much easier to understand.

I slightly preferred having the "how to modify" material on a separate 
page and under WorkingConventions, but as long as we link to these pages 
from the right places under WorkingConventions it should be ok.

Cheers,
	Simon

On 19/12/12 12:40, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> 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
>