Skip to content

Conversation

@philderbeast
Copy link
Collaborator

Fixes #11246. With the read the docs theme at versions >=0.18 we can't use lists within footnotes. I removed the list and put its elements inline as sentences within the footnote paragraph.


  • Patches conform to the coding conventions.
  • Is this a PR that fixes CI? If so, it will need to be backported to older cabal release branches (ask maintainers for directions).

Copy link
Collaborator

@geekosaur geekosaur left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd actually consider that a bug they should fix, but it sounds like that's unlikely.

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

I think the text should use "First, ... Second, ... Third, ..." or something

@philderbeast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I think the text should use "First, ... Second, ... Third, ..." or something

@ulysses4ever I numbered the sentences.

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

@philderbeast it'd be more idiomatic to use the actual words "first", etc. instead of numbers.

@philderbeast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

it'd be more idiomatic to use the actual words "first", etc. instead of numbers.

I asked Google and its AI didn't suggest that. My question for it was "how to number bullet points as sentences within a paragraph".

@geekosaur
Copy link
Collaborator

geekosaur commented Jan 5, 2026

My take on this is that things like "1." or "(a)" not in a proper list are fine for casual writing, but the words should be used within sentences for more formal writing such as in manuals.

I should probably add that I'm from an older school and notions of what's acceptable in formal writing may have shifted a bit, driven in particular by wider use of casual writing starting with email.

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

"it" became a bit ambiguous when the list was split into separate sentences, I think.

Copy link
Collaborator

@ulysses4ever ulysses4ever left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great! One last ask: could you wrap build-depends into code fences (double backticks in RST i think?..).

@philderbeast philderbeast requested a review from geekosaur January 5, 2026 20:54
@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

Rebasing on master should help with CI

@philderbeast philderbeast added merge me Tell Mergify Bot to merge and removed attention: needs-review labels Jan 7, 2026
@mergify mergify bot added the ready and waiting Mergify is waiting out the cooldown period label Jan 7, 2026
@philderbeast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

No need to backport this one is there?

@philderbeast philderbeast added squash+merge me Tell Mergify Bot to squash-merge and removed merge me Tell Mergify Bot to merge labels Jan 7, 2026
- Number the point sentences
- Use first, next and finally
- Replace .using Nix-style with with etc
- Replace it with build-depends
- Use code style for build-depends

Co-Authored-By: Artem Pelenitsyn <[email protected]>
@philderbeast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I opted to squash manually but left the [squash+merge me] label.

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

theoretically, we could bacckport to 3.16 and then push a new tag that RTD would pick up and update the docs for 3.16... i don't have energy for that but if someone has, we could probably do it (tags will have to be done by maintainers, of course...)

@mergify mergify bot added merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days queued labels Jan 9, 2026
@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Jan 9, 2026

Merge Queue Status

✅ The pull request has been merged at 9f85732

This pull request spent 1 hour 58 minutes 9 seconds in the queue, including 1 hour 47 minutes 2 seconds running CI.
The checks were run on draft #11400.

Required conditions to merge
  • #approved-reviews-by >= 2 [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
  • #changes-requested-reviews-by = 0 [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
  • #review-threads-unresolved = 0 [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
  • any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
    • check-success = Doctest Cabal
    • check-neutral = Doctest Cabal
    • check-skipped = Doctest Cabal
  • any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
    • check-success = Meta checks
    • check-neutral = Meta checks
    • check-skipped = Meta checks
  • any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
    • check-success = docs/readthedocs.org:cabal
    • check-neutral = docs/readthedocs.org:cabal
    • check-skipped = docs/readthedocs.org:cabal
  • any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
    • check-success = Validate post job
    • check-neutral = Validate post job
    • check-skipped = Validate post job
  • any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
    • check-success = fourmolu
    • check-neutral = fourmolu
    • check-skipped = fourmolu
  • any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
    • check-success = hlint
    • check-neutral = hlint
    • check-skipped = hlint
  • any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
    • check-success = Bootstrap post job
    • check-neutral = Bootstrap post job
    • check-skipped = Bootstrap post job
  • any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
    • check-success = whitespace
    • check-neutral = whitespace
    • check-skipped = whitespace
  • any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
    • check-success = Check sdist post job
    • check-neutral = Check sdist post job
    • check-skipped = Check sdist post job
  • any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
    • check-success = Changelogs
    • check-neutral = Changelogs
    • check-skipped = Changelogs

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 9, 2026
@mergify mergify bot merged commit a379fb6 into haskell:master Jan 9, 2026
138 checks passed
@mergify mergify bot removed the queued label Jan 9, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days ready and waiting Mergify is waiting out the cooldown period squash+merge me Tell Mergify Bot to squash-merge

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

footnote in cabal manual is misformatted

3 participants