Re: DUB 0.9.21 beta 3
On Wednesday, 15 January 2014 at 14:12:47 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: A new and hopefully last beta version of DUB 0.9.21 has been released: http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/826/ It contains some major new features, so extensive testing is needed to get a solid release. When using dub-test on one of my projects, I'm getting: dub_test_root.d(15): Error: module deimos.ev from file libev\deimos\ev.d must be imported as module 'deimos.ev' dub_test_root appears to import it as `libev.deimos.ev`, which is wrong. It looks like it should instead be looking at the module statement for how to import. The dub.json and project hierarchy can be found here[1]. [1] https://github.com/JakobOvrum/Dirk
Re: Dmitry Olshansky is now a github committer
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:27:43 -0500, Dejan Lekic wrote: On Friday, 24 January 2014 at 18:00:29 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: On Thursday, 23 January 2014 at 17:38:04 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Congratulations to Dmitry! (His github ID is blackwhale.) Andrei Can't you go to prison for that? I did not get the joke. I think it has something to do with "committer", like he committed a crime. That's just a guess :) -Steve
Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2
El 26/01/14 22:37, Andrew Edwards ha escrit: > On 1/26/14, 4:20 PM, Jordi Sayol wrote: >> El 26/01/14 21:59, Andrew Edwards ha escrit: >>> >>> Jordi, I need you to explain this. You wrote the scripts for the pkg >>> installers right? What happens when you pass a version number containing a >>> "-" to dmd_rpm.sh? I'll tell you: >>> >>> Building for target platforms: i386 >>> Building for target i386 >>> error: line 2: Illegal character '-' in: Version: 2.065.0-b2 >>> >>> I initially changed the naming convention because of errors like these >>> cropping up all over your scripts. Change it to '~' and it craps out on >>> another one of your scrips for a different package. Multiple other >>> >>> My question is, what is the proper version scheme that fits all the systems >>> that you are trying to make these packages for? This one obviously does not >>> work for at lease one of them. >> >> Andrew, the current deb/rpm building script version scheme is: >> >> ^[0-9]"."[0-9][0-9][0-9]$ >> or >> ^[0-9]"."[0-9][0-9][0-9]"."[0-9]+$ >> > > I've modified the version scheme so the script does not have a problem > identifying the zip. It simply craps the bed when it reaches dmd_rpm.sh. > [...] error: line 2: Illegal char '-' in: Version: 2.065.0-b2 - rpm packages do not allows "-" on version. I've pull-requested deb/rpm scripts to fix new dmd versioning scheme. Dash "-" is replaced by tilde "~" on deb/rpm packages version, and so on packages name. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/pull/47 -- Jordi Sayol
Re: dmd 2.065 beta 2
On 1/26/2014 3:38 PM, Andrew Edwards wrote: We've made a lot of progress towards the 2.065 stable release. Available binaries are as follows: I want to gratefully acknowledge and thank Andrew for taking on this incredibly important job that nobody else wanted, that of organizing, managing and leading this process.
Re: dmd 2.065 beta 2
On Sunday, 26 January 2014 at 23:38:56 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: We've made a lot of progress towards the 2.065 stable release. Available binaries are as follows: All Systems http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.zip FreeBSD http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.freebsd-32.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.freebsd-64.zip Linux http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.linux.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0-b2-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0-b2-0_i386.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-65_2.065.0-b2-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-65_2.065.0-b2-0_i386.deb OSX http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.osx.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.dmg Windows http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.exe http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.windows.zip Note: There are no RPMs available for Suse and Fedora at the moment. They will be provided upon becoming available. The list of current regressions may be accessed here: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED Following are the changes incorporated since beta 1: DMD Issue 11982 - ICE(func.c) With function literal with no body Issue 11974 - ICE(case.c) Segfault with invalid assignment Issue 11966 - inout(const(char))[] doesn't convert to inout(char)[] Issue 11956 - dmd doesn't lookup /etc/dmd.conf Issue 11968 - ICE(expression.c) Crash when deleting __FILE__ Issue 11944 - ICE(expression.c) Assertion `f' failed. Issue 11922 - ICE on nonexistent identifier in templated auto method Issue 11924 - inout Variadic Template Parameters Issue 11896 - isVirtualMethod related GitHub HEAD regression (works with 2.064) Issue 11930 - Alias this not considered in is(T unused: U) matching Issue 11931 - Linkers "Symbol Undefined" again with dmd HEAD when -g specified Issue 11941 - Errors when appending to aggregate member array in CTFE Issue 11967 - ICE(parse.c) Parser crash Issue 11965 - Segfault on garbage Issue 11963 - ICE(parse.c) Parser crash Druntime None Phobos Remove duplicate ArchiveMember.madeVersion() property. Rename phobos.html => index.html Installer Pull #44 - Build the installer GUI for D2 on OS X Pull #43 - add "dustmite" binary on deb/rpm packages Pull #42 - don't zip .git* and .DS_Store files Pull #41 - fix expanding zip files created on Windows Pull #40 - cleanup leftover from merge conflict dlang.org Pull #480 - fix chmgen after renaming phobos.html => index.html Pull #478 - Revert changelog.dd encoding to UTF-8 Pull #477 - Changelog: add notes about std.uni.byGrapheme and std.range.only Pull #476 - 2.065 changelog tools None Regards, Andrew Great work, thanks Andrew and the other D devs for all the hard work. Will the BETA be made publicly available on the download page? I think there would be a greater uptake if it had more presence. I try to use the BETA when I see the announcement, but I don't visit the NG regularly these days and actually missed the 2.063 BETA altogether when it was released. NG time = 1/(coding time + family time). Cheers, ed
dmd 2.065 beta 2
We've made a lot of progress towards the 2.065 stable release. Available binaries are as follows: All Systems http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.zip FreeBSD http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.freebsd-32.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.freebsd-64.zip Linux http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.linux.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0-b2-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0-b2-0_i386.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-65_2.065.0-b2-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-65_2.065.0-b2-0_i386.deb OSX http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.osx.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.dmg Windows http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.exe http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0-b2.windows.zip Note: There are no RPMs available for Suse and Fedora at the moment. They will be provided upon becoming available. The list of current regressions may be accessed here: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED Following are the changes incorporated since beta 1: DMD Issue 11982 - ICE(func.c) With function literal with no body Issue 11974 - ICE(case.c) Segfault with invalid assignment Issue 11966 - inout(const(char))[] doesn't convert to inout(char)[] Issue 11956 - dmd doesn't lookup /etc/dmd.conf Issue 11968 - ICE(expression.c) Crash when deleting __FILE__ Issue 11944 - ICE(expression.c) Assertion `f' failed. Issue 11922 - ICE on nonexistent identifier in templated auto method Issue 11924 - inout Variadic Template Parameters Issue 11896 - isVirtualMethod related GitHub HEAD regression (works with 2.064) Issue 11930 - Alias this not considered in is(T unused: U) matching Issue 11931 - Linkers "Symbol Undefined" again with dmd HEAD when -g specified Issue 11941 - Errors when appending to aggregate member array in CTFE Issue 11967 - ICE(parse.c) Parser crash Issue 11965 - Segfault on garbage Issue 11963 - ICE(parse.c) Parser crash Druntime None Phobos Remove duplicate ArchiveMember.madeVersion() property. Rename phobos.html => index.html Installer Pull #44 - Build the installer GUI for D2 on OS X Pull #43 - add "dustmite" binary on deb/rpm packages Pull #42 - don't zip .git* and .DS_Store files Pull #41 - fix expanding zip files created on Windows Pull #40 - cleanup leftover from merge conflict dlang.org Pull #480 - fix chmgen after renaming phobos.html => index.html Pull #478 - Revert changelog.dd encoding to UTF-8 Pull #477 - Changelog: add notes about std.uni.byGrapheme and std.range.only Pull #476 - 2.065 changelog tools None Regards, Andrew
Re: ∅MQD, a ∅MQ wrapper for D
On Friday, 24 January 2014 at 19:20:26 UTC, Justin Whear wrote: Now that I think of it, you also need to find a scheme for indicating which events you want to listen for. Which means either a simple pairing type (socket, event mask) or a getopt-style interface. I have suggested a few possible poll APIs here: https://github.com/kyllingstad/zmqd/issues/3 Comments are very welcome.
Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2
On 1/26/14, 4:20 PM, Jordi Sayol wrote: El 26/01/14 21:59, Andrew Edwards ha escrit: Jordi, I need you to explain this. You wrote the scripts for the pkg installers right? What happens when you pass a version number containing a "-" to dmd_rpm.sh? I'll tell you: Building for target platforms: i386 Building for target i386 error: line 2: Illegal character '-' in: Version: 2.065.0-b2 I initially changed the naming convention because of errors like these cropping up all over your scripts. Change it to '~' and it craps out on another one of your scrips for a different package. Multiple other My question is, what is the proper version scheme that fits all the systems that you are trying to make these packages for? This one obviously does not work for at lease one of them. Andrew, the current deb/rpm building script version scheme is: ^[0-9]"."[0-9][0-9][0-9]$ or ^[0-9]"."[0-9][0-9][0-9]"."[0-9]+$ I've modified the version scheme so the script does not have a problem identifying the zip. It simply craps the bed when it reaches dmd_rpm.sh.
Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2
On 1/26/14, 3:59 PM, Andrew Edwards wrote: Jordi, I need you to explain this. You wrote the scripts for the pkg installers right? What happens when you pass a version number containing a "-" to dmd_rpm.sh? I'll tell you: Building for target platforms: i386 Building for target i386 error: line 2: Illegal character '-' in: Version: 2.065.0-b2 I initially changed the naming convention because of errors like these cropping up all over your scripts. Change it to '~' and it craps out on another one of your scrips for a different package. Multiple other My question is, what is the proper version scheme that fits all the systems that you are trying to make these packages for? This one obviously does not work for at lease one of them. It sent before finishing my thoughts. Anyway, the scheme you are lobbying for is the one being used. Just gotta figure out what to do about rpm for Suse and Fedora.
Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2
El 26/01/14 21:59, Andrew Edwards ha escrit: > On 1/26/14, 11:19 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote: >> El 26/01/14 16:23, Dejan Lekic ha escrit: >>> On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 08:25:05 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote: El 22/01/14 02:06, Andrew Edwards ha escrit: > On 1/21/14, 6:02 PM, Jordi Sayol wrote: >> El 21/01/14 23:29, Brad Anderson ha escrit: >>> #.###.~b# ==> 2.065.b1 // beta >>> #.###.~rc# ==> 2.065.rc1 // release candidate >>> #.###.0 ==> 2.065.0 // initial release >>> #.###.# ==> 2.065.1 // hotfix >> >> On Debian, "2.065.rc1" is bigger than "2.065.0", so if >> "dmd_2.065.rc1-0_amd64.deb" is installed and you try to upgrade to >> "dmd_2.065.0-0_amd64.deb", system will answer something like "You have >> installed a newer version". >> >> No problem if these deb packages are for internal use and test, but not >> for a public download. >> >> $ dpkg --compare-versions "2.065.0" gt "2.065.rc1" && echo "Bigger" || >> echo "Not bigger" >> > > Apparently the same problem exists on FreeBSD. The first solution that > comes to mind is to prefix the qualifiers for betas and release > candidates with a tilde. As such: > > 2.065~b1 > 2.065~rc1 > > or: > > 2.065.~b1 > 2.065.~rc1 > > This solution works on both Ubuntu and FreeBSD but I'm not sure it is the > right one. Suggestions are welcomed. I prefer: 2.65~b1 2.65~rc1 because "2.65.0" and "2.65" are bigger than "2.65~rc1", regardless if "qualifier" number is present or not in final release version. I think that, as much as possible, we should use exactly the same version string for all installers, zip, deb, rpm, dmg, etc. So if there is no problem on OSX, Windows, etc. I propose this versioning scheme: #.#~b# ==> 2.65~b1 // beta #.#~rc# ==> 2.65~rc1 // release candidate #.#.# ==> 2.65.0 // initial release #.#.# ==> 2.65.1 // hotfix >>> >>> I do not like the tilda scheme above. Because it does not conform to the >>> major.minor.micro-qualifier scheme. >>> >>> Before I propose another scheme, let me list some assumptions: >>> >>> 1) We will never have more than 3 release candidates. >>> 2) Same goes for betas. You rarely see more than two beta releases for >>> certain upcoming release of a product. >>> >>> Therefore I propose the following (if it is "compatible" with FreeBSD and >>> Debian) simple solution. We simply move beta and rc into the "qualifier". >>> >>> So, we have: >>> 2.065.0 (release) >>> 2.065.0-rc2 (release candidate) >>> 2.065.0-b1 (beta one) >>> >>> This makes more sense IMHO. >>> >> >> >> This scheme was already proposed by Leandro Lucarella, and I like it. >> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/lbmru9$290b$1...@digitalmars.com#post-20140122001903.GE23332:40llucax.com.ar >> It only differs by leading zero on minor number, which can be cleanly >> removed. >> >> Anyway, tilde is still mandatory on Debian packages due to upgrade reasons, >> so we can apply the Leandro's solution too: >> s/-/~/ >> >> Regards, >> > > Jordi, I need you to explain this. You wrote the scripts for the pkg > installers right? What happens when you pass a version number containing a > "-" to dmd_rpm.sh? I'll tell you: > > Building for target platforms: i386 > Building for target i386 > error: line 2: Illegal character '-' in: Version: 2.065.0-b2 > > I initially changed the naming convention because of errors like these > cropping up all over your scripts. Change it to '~' and it craps out on > another one of your scrips for a different package. Multiple other > > My question is, what is the proper version scheme that fits all the systems > that you are trying to make these packages for? This one obviously does not > work for at lease one of them. Andrew, the current deb/rpm building script version scheme is: ^[0-9]"."[0-9][0-9][0-9]$ or ^[0-9]"."[0-9][0-9][0-9]"."[0-9]+$ I'm waiting to know the final new dmd versioning scheme. As soon as it is stablished, I'll modify these scripts to allow them. Of course if the new scheme contains "*-b?" or "*-rc?", "-" will be replaced by "~", for a correct package upgrade on Debian. I don't know if this happens on rpm systems too. I'll investigate. Regards, -- Jordi Sayol
Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2
On 1/26/14, 11:19 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote: El 26/01/14 16:23, Dejan Lekic ha escrit: On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 08:25:05 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote: El 22/01/14 02:06, Andrew Edwards ha escrit: On 1/21/14, 6:02 PM, Jordi Sayol wrote: El 21/01/14 23:29, Brad Anderson ha escrit: #.###.~b# ==> 2.065.b1 // beta #.###.~rc# ==> 2.065.rc1 // release candidate #.###.0 ==> 2.065.0 // initial release #.###.# ==> 2.065.1 // hotfix On Debian, "2.065.rc1" is bigger than "2.065.0", so if "dmd_2.065.rc1-0_amd64.deb" is installed and you try to upgrade to "dmd_2.065.0-0_amd64.deb", system will answer something like "You have installed a newer version". No problem if these deb packages are for internal use and test, but not for a public download. $ dpkg --compare-versions "2.065.0" gt "2.065.rc1" && echo "Bigger" || echo "Not bigger" Apparently the same problem exists on FreeBSD. The first solution that comes to mind is to prefix the qualifiers for betas and release candidates with a tilde. As such: 2.065~b1 2.065~rc1 or: 2.065.~b1 2.065.~rc1 This solution works on both Ubuntu and FreeBSD but I'm not sure it is the right one. Suggestions are welcomed. I prefer: 2.65~b1 2.65~rc1 because "2.65.0" and "2.65" are bigger than "2.65~rc1", regardless if "qualifier" number is present or not in final release version. I think that, as much as possible, we should use exactly the same version string for all installers, zip, deb, rpm, dmg, etc. So if there is no problem on OSX, Windows, etc. I propose this versioning scheme: #.#~b# ==> 2.65~b1 // beta #.#~rc# ==> 2.65~rc1 // release candidate #.#.# ==> 2.65.0 // initial release #.#.# ==> 2.65.1 // hotfix I do not like the tilda scheme above. Because it does not conform to the major.minor.micro-qualifier scheme. Before I propose another scheme, let me list some assumptions: 1) We will never have more than 3 release candidates. 2) Same goes for betas. You rarely see more than two beta releases for certain upcoming release of a product. Therefore I propose the following (if it is "compatible" with FreeBSD and Debian) simple solution. We simply move beta and rc into the "qualifier". So, we have: 2.065.0 (release) 2.065.0-rc2 (release candidate) 2.065.0-b1 (beta one) This makes more sense IMHO. This scheme was already proposed by Leandro Lucarella, and I like it. http://forum.dlang.org/thread/lbmru9$290b$1...@digitalmars.com#post-20140122001903.GE23332:40llucax.com.ar It only differs by leading zero on minor number, which can be cleanly removed. Anyway, tilde is still mandatory on Debian packages due to upgrade reasons, so we can apply the Leandro's solution too: s/-/~/ Regards, Jordi, I need you to explain this. You wrote the scripts for the pkg installers right? What happens when you pass a version number containing a "-" to dmd_rpm.sh? I'll tell you: Building for target platforms: i386 Building for target i386 error: line 2: Illegal character '-' in: Version: 2.065.0-b2 I initially changed the naming convention because of errors like these cropping up all over your scripts. Change it to '~' and it craps out on another one of your scrips for a different package. Multiple other My question is, what is the proper version scheme that fits all the systems that you are trying to make these packages for? This one obviously does not work for at lease one of them.
Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2
El 26/01/14 16:23, Dejan Lekic ha escrit: > On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 08:25:05 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote: >> El 22/01/14 02:06, Andrew Edwards ha escrit: >>> On 1/21/14, 6:02 PM, Jordi Sayol wrote: El 21/01/14 23:29, Brad Anderson ha escrit: > #.###.~b# ==> 2.065.b1 // beta > #.###.~rc# ==> 2.065.rc1 // release candidate > #.###.0 ==> 2.065.0 // initial release > #.###.# ==> 2.065.1 // hotfix On Debian, "2.065.rc1" is bigger than "2.065.0", so if "dmd_2.065.rc1-0_amd64.deb" is installed and you try to upgrade to "dmd_2.065.0-0_amd64.deb", system will answer something like "You have installed a newer version". No problem if these deb packages are for internal use and test, but not for a public download. $ dpkg --compare-versions "2.065.0" gt "2.065.rc1" && echo "Bigger" || echo "Not bigger" >>> >>> Apparently the same problem exists on FreeBSD. The first solution that >>> comes to mind is to prefix the qualifiers for betas and release candidates >>> with a tilde. As such: >>> >>> 2.065~b1 >>> 2.065~rc1 >>> >>> or: >>> >>> 2.065.~b1 >>> 2.065.~rc1 >>> >>> This solution works on both Ubuntu and FreeBSD but I'm not sure it is the >>> right one. Suggestions are welcomed. >> >> I prefer: >> >> 2.65~b1 >> 2.65~rc1 >> >> because "2.65.0" and "2.65" are bigger than "2.65~rc1", regardless if >> "qualifier" number is present or not in final release version. >> >> I think that, as much as possible, we should use exactly the same version >> string for all installers, zip, deb, rpm, dmg, etc. >> So if there is no problem on OSX, Windows, etc. I propose this versioning >> scheme: >> >> #.#~b# ==> 2.65~b1 // beta >> #.#~rc# ==> 2.65~rc1 // release candidate >> #.#.# ==> 2.65.0 // initial release >> #.#.# ==> 2.65.1 // hotfix > > I do not like the tilda scheme above. Because it does not conform to the > major.minor.micro-qualifier scheme. > > Before I propose another scheme, let me list some assumptions: > > 1) We will never have more than 3 release candidates. > 2) Same goes for betas. You rarely see more than two beta releases for > certain upcoming release of a product. > > Therefore I propose the following (if it is "compatible" with FreeBSD and > Debian) simple solution. We simply move beta and rc into the "qualifier". > > So, we have: > 2.065.0 (release) > 2.065.0-rc2 (release candidate) > 2.065.0-b1 (beta one) > > This makes more sense IMHO. > This scheme was already proposed by Leandro Lucarella, and I like it. http://forum.dlang.org/thread/lbmru9$290b$1...@digitalmars.com#post-20140122001903.GE23332:40llucax.com.ar It only differs by leading zero on minor number, which can be cleanly removed. Anyway, tilde is still mandatory on Debian packages due to upgrade reasons, so we can apply the Leandro's solution too: s/-/~/ Regards, -- Jordi Sayol
Re: Dmitry Olshansky is now a github committer
On Friday, 24 January 2014 at 18:00:29 UTC, Steve Teale wrote: On Thursday, 23 January 2014 at 17:38:04 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Congratulations to Dmitry! (His github ID is blackwhale.) Andrei Can't you go to prison for that? I did not get the joke.
Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2
On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 08:25:05 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote: El 22/01/14 02:06, Andrew Edwards ha escrit: On 1/21/14, 6:02 PM, Jordi Sayol wrote: El 21/01/14 23:29, Brad Anderson ha escrit: #.###.~b# ==> 2.065.b1 // beta #.###.~rc# ==> 2.065.rc1 // release candidate #.###.0 ==> 2.065.0 // initial release #.###.# ==> 2.065.1 // hotfix On Debian, "2.065.rc1" is bigger than "2.065.0", so if "dmd_2.065.rc1-0_amd64.deb" is installed and you try to upgrade to "dmd_2.065.0-0_amd64.deb", system will answer something like "You have installed a newer version". No problem if these deb packages are for internal use and test, but not for a public download. $ dpkg --compare-versions "2.065.0" gt "2.065.rc1" && echo "Bigger" || echo "Not bigger" Apparently the same problem exists on FreeBSD. The first solution that comes to mind is to prefix the qualifiers for betas and release candidates with a tilde. As such: 2.065~b1 2.065~rc1 or: 2.065.~b1 2.065.~rc1 This solution works on both Ubuntu and FreeBSD but I'm not sure it is the right one. Suggestions are welcomed. I prefer: 2.65~b1 2.65~rc1 because "2.65.0" and "2.65" are bigger than "2.65~rc1", regardless if "qualifier" number is present or not in final release version. I think that, as much as possible, we should use exactly the same version string for all installers, zip, deb, rpm, dmg, etc. So if there is no problem on OSX, Windows, etc. I propose this versioning scheme: #.#~b# ==> 2.65~b1 // beta #.#~rc# ==> 2.65~rc1 // release candidate #.#.# ==> 2.65.0 // initial release #.#.# ==> 2.65.1 // hotfix I do not like the tilda scheme above. Because it does not conform to the major.minor.micro-qualifier scheme. Before I propose another scheme, let me list some assumptions: 1) We will never have more than 3 release candidates. 2) Same goes for betas. You rarely see more than two beta releases for certain upcoming release of a product. Therefore I propose the following (if it is "compatible" with FreeBSD and Debian) simple solution. We simply move beta and rc into the "qualifier". So, we have: 2.065.0 (release) 2.065.0-rc2 (release candidate) 2.065.0-b1 (beta one) This makes more sense IMHO. Kind regards
Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2
"Martin Nowak" wrote in message news:jcszzsgkwldowcmwz...@forum.dlang.org... Mmh, we could simply upload the intermediate zip files for each platform, that fall out of create_dmd_release before they are combined. Any ETA on this? I'd like to provide a win32 version with dmd replaced by ddmd for people to test.
