[I can only speak for myself as a contributor to LDC, other devs might
have other opinions]
On 11/11/11 7:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/11/2011 5:43 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:
This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC was
dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which
hasn't been updated since July.
Come to think of it, I don't think it was announced anywhere but on
IRC.
It originally wasn't announced on the NG because the move was not yet
complete, but then, progress in that regard somewhat stalled, leading to
the awkward situation we are having now. This definitely needs
improvement asap, I'll see what I can do over the next few days.
There was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be
hosted under
the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn't get much of any attention...).
I hadn't noticed that request.
I only barely remember something related as well – I don't think it was
actually a LDC committer asking…
I don't know if it is a good idea or not to put it under
d-programming-language. One issue is it might run out of space for the
free version :-) Another might be the implication of who is in charge of
it.
I don't know if it's a good idea either. Historically, so to say, LDC
was always a separate project, and some of the reasons for that
certainly don't apply any longer. On the one hand, it would certainly
make it easier for people to find the project, and since LDC uses the
official frontend, it's probably not even that bad of a fit.
On the other hand, though, I have to admit (nolens volens), that LDC is
usually less well maintained than DMD and Phobos, and as such, it might
not be the best idea to include it in the official organization.
Furthermore, having it as a separate organization probably fits the
usual GitHub collaboration model better, since we can have our own
druntime/Phobos forks – intra-repo pull requests are perfectly possible,
but blurring the line between what's actively developed DMD and what's
release-tracking LDC stuff could be bad.
Anyhow, may I make a suggestion? I tried to make a deimos project under
github, but that was taken. So instead, I thought of
d-programming-deimos, which seems perfect. Can I suggest renaming
ldc-developers to d-programming-ldc? I think that would help tie the D
related projects together.
Right now, someone looking at "ldc-developers" would have no idea it is
related to D.
Prefixing D projects with "d-programming" would help out with brand
visibility.
When we started the move to GitHub, I tried to create an »ldc« org, but
it was already taken. The best alternative we could come up with on IRC
was ldc-developers, which we then decided to use.
Regarding d-programming-ldc, I am not much sure if it would really
change anything, but if it is generally agreed on, fine with me. Not
having formally announced the move could actually come in handy here,
since the only thing that depends on the path (besides quite a number of
local user repos) is probably the Fedora packaging script.
In any case, I think the most important thing here is to reach consensus
as fast as possible here, so that we can restore LDC into a state where
it isn't vastly undersold simply because of one or two days of
documentation/publicity work…
David
