On 9/9/2014 6:54 AM, Dragos Carp via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 at 12:31:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Also it sounds as if you think that someone actually does any
coordination about what must go into release. As far as I am aware
there is no such thing, even http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda is just a
convention. Currently releases are based exclusively on a time frame +
regression list (all that was in master goes to the release branch and
is kept there until known regressions are fixed, repeat for the next
cycle).
Are you satisfied with the current process?
Let me summarize some important drawbacks of the current workflow:
1. No clear defined deadline for preparing a merge-able PR.
2. Unorganized PR merge campaigns. The people merging the PR are doing a
great job, but they do this triggered by arbitrary events: too many open
PRs, a cool new PR appears, somebody poke them on forum, or simply have
some time for this kind of work.
3. Somehow arbitrary merge criteria. Having a defined merge window, when
some people do just PR merges, will implicitly produce more predictable
and uniform acceptance criteria.
4. Lack of focus during test phase. Maybe this is the main reason for
the v2.066 regressions. Some people keep merging new PRs, before the old
ones are proven done during the test phase. Even Walter was annoyed a
couple of times by the multitude of versions that the people are
simultaneously working on.
5. Rotting old PRs. The "merge window" phase would be a defined
recurrent occasion to review and decide about those.
Of course the process can be better. But NONE of those are a result of
the repository split that you're advocating removing.
