On Friday, 4 January 2013 at 18:35:18 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 4 January 2013 at 17:26:02 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Fri, 04 Jan 2013 08:35:17 -0800
schrieb Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>:
The thread was way too big, and I had too little time to get
into
that conversation, which is why I wasn't involved.
- Jonathan M Davis
OK, but it would have been a lot shorter had you and the other
devs become involved ;)
First, regression fix don't make any sense to me. You suggest
to fix bug in master and fix regression in older branches. This
should be the opposite IMO.
A regression is something that used to work, but don't work
anymore. So Correcting them in older version seems kind of
contradictory, especially when other bugs aren't.
I don't think separating those 2 type of bugs is really
beneficial and I would keep only the process for regression
fixes.
Terminology aside, we need to differentiate between bug fixes
that do not introduce new bugs vs bug fixes that may introduce
new bugs *or* break existing code for the current release
version. We also *have* to prevent new features and structural
changes (destabilizers) from leaking into a stable release.
Secondly, in every git commands block you have all the commands
to set-up the repository. I think this belong to its own
paragraph or even its own page. Then I'd replace them with git
remote update in git command block.
Finally, it is weird that we have v2.062 -> v2.062.1 . I'd
prefers v2.062.0 for the first one.
Absolutely! Otherwise someone is going to think v2.062 is greater
than v2.062.1. Guaranteed. I already got semi-confused looking at
the latest download page and I know what's going on far more than
Joe Smith who walks in tomorrow checking out D for the first time.
I like very much the ASCII art on top, which make thing really
clear. Overall, it is better that the actual version on the
wiki.
Looks good yes.
--rt
