Re: Video: Generic Programming Galore using D @ Strange Loop 2011
On 4/18/12, SomeDude wrote: > On Tuesday, 17 April 2012 at 08:00:36 UTC, Denis Shelomovskij > wrote: >> >> It's pity that a video is read-only and it isn't easy to fix >> slips of the tongue like this one. Maybe some notes can be >> added? >> >> Anyway, these (Andrei's and Walter's) videos are too good to >> not list them on the site. > > I've cleaned up the wiki a bit and added them: > http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?WhySwitch You could actually add them here and link to it: http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Videos I made that page a long while ago but I didn't really know where to link it from, so I just put it in the first tab I found (The D Community: http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?NeighborHood)
Re: Video: Generic Programming Galore using D @ Strange Loop 2011
On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 18:41:05 UTC, SomeDude wrote: I've cleaned up the wiki a bit and added them: http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?WhySwitch And thank you for doing that.
Re: Video: Generic Programming Galore using D @ Strange Loop 2011
On Tuesday, 17 April 2012 at 08:00:36 UTC, Denis Shelomovskij wrote: It's pity that a video is read-only and it isn't easy to fix slips of the tongue like this one. Maybe some notes can be added? Anyway, these (Andrei's and Walter's) videos are too good to not list them on the site. I've cleaned up the wiki a bit and added them: http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?WhySwitch
Re: Pull requests processing issue
On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 09:00:59 UTC, Trass3r wrote: I think the problem of ~100 open pull requests needs to be faced better. People that see their patches rot in that list probably don't feel rewarded enough to submit more patches. So true. I won't do any further work if it's in vain anyway. Also I regularly have to rebase my one cause of conflicts, which is annoying. I really wonder what Walter's doing. Is he still running the whole testsuite instead of relying on the autotester? Well, I've seen at least one regression in D.learn from 2.058 to 2.059 and that doesn't give me much confidence in what random people are doing when they are submitting their patches. So instead of bitching about what Walter's doing, people should be more careful what THEY are doing.
Re: »Haskell vs. D« backstage discussion featuring Andrei and Walter at Lang.NEXT
On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 17:05:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 4/17/2012 9:00 PM, bearophile wrote: > I think the problem of ~100 open pull requests needs to be faced better. People > that see their patches rot in that list probably don't feel rewarded enough to > submit more patches. Consider that 8 out of 9 submitted pull requests for dmd have been pulled, and the current unpulled list does not include solutions for issues people are regarding as critical blockers. It might be a good policy to have the submitter (or even yourself) close pull requests that aren't ready for merging and reopen them once they are ready to be reviewed. This would help make the queue more manageable and easier to see what's ready to consider and what is not (it's a shame pull requests don't have simple tagging/labeling like GitHub's issues). Regards, Brad Anderson
Re: »Haskell vs. D« backstage discussion featuring Andrei and Walter at Lang.NEXT
On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 17:05:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Consider that 8 out of 9 submitted pull requests for dmd have been pulled Another thing to consider is some of them are waiting for other reasons. My pull requests, for example, are waiting on ME to address a comment and I haven't gotten around to it yet. I don't think you can tell that by looking at it in github. Who knows how many others are in a similar condition.
Re: »Haskell vs. D« backstage discussion featuring Andrei and Walter at Lang.NEXT
On 4/17/2012 9:00 PM, bearophile wrote: > I think the problem of ~100 open pull requests needs to be faced better. People > that see their patches rot in that list probably don't feel rewarded enough to > submit more patches. Consider that 8 out of 9 submitted pull requests for dmd have been pulled, and the current unpulled list does not include solutions for issues people are regarding as critical blockers.
Re: »Haskell vs. D« backstage discussion featuring Andrei and Walter at Lang.NEXT
Le 18/04/2012 00:49, David Nadlinger a écrit : Another video from Lang.NEXT 2012 went live recently: [1]. Erik Meijer is joined by Andrew Adams-Moran, Walter and Andrei to discuss various topics surrounding D and Haskell. Most of the things covered probably aren't particularly new to most of the people here, but publicity for D is alway nice to see (also don't miss Andrei's humorous remark on the editor war). One topic I found very interesting, but which was unfortunately barely covered within the constrained time, is the question about what »dirty laundry« is there for D, the language, right now (i.e. features/aspects that turned out to be more of a liability than profit). Sure, bit is an example, but that has been disposed of a long time ago. What has piled up in the basket since then? David [1] http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Charles/Alexandrescu-Bright-Meijer-Moran-Pure-versus-Native-and-much-more yum on debian systems
Re: Pull requests processing issue
On 18/04/12 12:19, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: On 18-04-2012 11:00, Trass3r wrote: I think the problem of ~100 open pull requests needs to be faced better. People that see their patches rot in that list probably don't feel rewarded enough to submit more patches. So true. I won't do any further work if it's in vain anyway. Also I regularly have to rebase my one cause of conflicts, which is annoying. I really wonder what Walter's doing. Is he still running the whole testsuite instead of relying on the autotester? Just looking at the auto tester, there seems to be tons of stuff that can readily be merged... One problem is github. IMHO github's pull requests are quite ridiculous, there is no way to prioritize them. There are quite a lot of pull requests in there which are doubtful, high-risk, or require a lot of time to evaluate. Currently, we don't have a way to deal with them. But, the announce list is not the appropriate place for this discussion. Please move to the main list if you want to comment further.
Re: Pull requests processing issue
On 18-04-2012 11:00, Trass3r wrote: I think the problem of ~100 open pull requests needs to be faced better. People that see their patches rot in that list probably don't feel rewarded enough to submit more patches. So true. I won't do any further work if it's in vain anyway. Also I regularly have to rebase my one cause of conflicts, which is annoying. I really wonder what Walter's doing. Is he still running the whole testsuite instead of relying on the autotester? Just looking at the auto tester, there seems to be tons of stuff that can readily be merged... -- - Alex
Pull requests processing issue
I think the problem of ~100 open pull requests needs to be faced better. People that see their patches rot in that list probably don't feel rewarded enough to submit more patches. So true. I won't do any further work if it's in vain anyway. Also I regularly have to rebase my one cause of conflicts, which is annoying. I really wonder what Walter's doing. Is he still running the whole testsuite instead of relying on the autotester?
