Closed izgzhen closed 5 years ago
@izgzhen Thanks to @alpmestan we already have a quick start guide in official GHC docs:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Building/Hadrian/QuickStart
What else do we need? If there are some specific docs, let's create separate issues for each one to discuss, assign and track progress separately.
Adding versioning and a change log is a good idea! Let's do that.
Make a Google form asking ghc-devs to talk about their feedback
Let's wait until the validation issue is solved. Until then I consider Hadrian pretty much unusable for GHC developers.
What else do we need? If there are some specific docs, let's create separate issues for each one to discuss, assign and track progress separately.
I think the content of the docs is already sufficient, but we need more pointers in parental pages, e.g. https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Building
Let's wait until the validation issue is solved. Until then I consider Hadrian pretty much unusable for GHC developers.
Agreed
I am planning to "put the word out" a bit more strongly soon, I in fact wanted to do that last week but Andrey told me he'd really like us to properly run all tests/validation scripts before we do that. So this is definitely planned :-)
I think we can close this: Hadrian has been merged and we're finishing off a few issues. I hope that soon GHC developers themselves will start using and improving Hadrian.
Currently, Hadrian is more stable compared to one year ago but it lacks users to be sufficiently tested. I have some ideas about this problem:
MAJOR
.MINOR
.PATCH
), aCHANGELOG
and a release process for updating the submodule in GHC for each MINOR version bump