Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 23:27:47 UTC, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote: On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 17:13:27 UTC, deadalnix wrote: http://sarah.thesharps.us/2015/10/05/closing-a-door/ https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/38136.html These are different times. Yup, professional victim use to not

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Friday, 30 October 2015 at 06:04:48 UTC, deadalnix wrote: Why would someone capable as Sarah Sharp would join the train is a mystery, but not all mystery are worth spending time solving. Judging by her post, she tried to force her behavioral standards on the Linux kernel community and did

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 10/29/15 7:49 PM, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote: On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 17:36:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/28/2015 2:12 AM, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote: You are not in good company tho. Even the page you link to says nobody else could or should say stuff like that. And attitudes like

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 17:13:27 UTC, deadalnix wrote: http://sarah.thesharps.us/2015/10/05/closing-a-door/ https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/38136.html These are different times. Yup, professional victim use to not be a viable career path. What do you mean? Cheers, Jakob.

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 17:36:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/28/2015 2:12 AM, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote: You are not in good company tho. Even the page you link to says nobody else could or should say stuff like that. And attitudes like that will only disurage people from trying to

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 17:36:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I did not mean that absence of a Code of Conduct is license to abuse others. Just that a CoC is itself insulting, paternalistic, and not a solution. I believe it can be understood, because asocial people are left to deal

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 23:49:08 UTC, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote: On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 17:36:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/28/2015 2:12 AM, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote: You are not in good company tho. Even the page you link to says nobody else could or should say stuff like

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 10/13/2015 12:13 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/13/2015 6:36 AM, Daniel Kozak wrote: lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html Maybe we could have something similar in D community No. People who need to be told what decent behavior is won't pay attention to such a

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 09:12:55 UTC, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote: You are not in good company tho. Even the page you link to says nobody else could or should say stuff like that. Quick, call the thought police ! And attitudes like that will only disurage people from trying to improve

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 17:38:49 UTC, David DeWitt wrote: On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 17:13:27 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 09:12:55 UTC, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote: You are not in good company tho. Even the page you link to says nobody else could or

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 17:13:27 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 09:12:55 UTC, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote: You are not in good company tho. Even the page you link to says nobody else could or should say stuff like that. Quick, call the thought police ! And

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 10/28/2015 2:12 AM, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote: You are not in good company tho. Even the page you link to says nobody else could or should say stuff like that. And attitudes like that will only disurage people from trying to improve this community.

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 08:36:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/13/2015 12:13 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/13/2015 6:36 AM, Daniel Kozak wrote: lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html Maybe we could have something similar in D community No. People who need to

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 08:36:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/13/2015 12:13 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/13/2015 6:36 AM, Daniel Kozak wrote: lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html Maybe we could have something similar in D community No. People who need to

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 18:56:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: LOL. Yeah. That's a pretty epic change of topic; it's not even _close_ to the original anymore. How about this D Code of Conduct: do the stuff.

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

The thread topic has wandered so far from "Code of Conduct" that nobody will ever find this current discussion. Perhaps start a new thread?

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 18:38:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: The thread topic has wandered so far from "Code of Conduct" that nobody will ever find this current discussion. Perhaps start a new thread? LOL. Yeah. That's a pretty epic change of topic; it's not even _close_ to the

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 21 October 2015 at 10:26, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 08:06:34 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote: > >> It might make sense to reconsider upstreaming our inline ASM code. I >> think the main reason we didn't do that yet was

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 21 October 2015 at 20:36, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > The thread topic has wandered so far from "Code of Conduct" that nobody > will ever find this current discussion. Perhaps start a new thread? > If only we had a Code of Conduct for derailing

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

Am Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:02:17 +0200 schrieb Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d : > On 20 October 2015 at 20:44, Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d < > digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > > On Monday, 19 October 2015 at 21:24:00 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > > >> In

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 08:06:34 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote: It might make sense to reconsider upstreaming our inline ASM code. I think the main reason we didn't do that yet was that the druntime developers think of druntime as a compiler specific library anyway. And then there's no use

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Monday, 19 October 2015 at 20:47:55 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: No, not just the runtime. Surely the runtime contains some compiler/linker/toolchain-specific things... intrinsics, linker scripts, section names, predefined versions, assembler syntax... some of these might be

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Monday, 19 October 2015 at 21:24:00 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: In order: You are responsible, the library maintainers (I chip in a bit on the side when I have the hardware / virtual environment). You are responsible, the authors and reviewers of the testsuite and unittests. Who is this

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 20 October 2015 at 20:44, Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Monday, 19 October 2015 at 21:24:00 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: > >> In order: >> You are responsible, the library maintainers (I chip in a bit on the side >> when I have the hardware /

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 at 20:02:26 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: What can I say? We have a lot of faith in our porters. :-) You can talk to me if you run into any problems, because I'm certainly more *aware* of porting and portability than most other druntime and compiler maintainers.

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 07:56:02 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 18 Oct 2015 9:45 am, "Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: On Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 07:37:55 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: Essentially, the reason D has not been ported to X has nothing

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 19 Oct 2015 10:50 pm, "Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 07:56:02 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> On 18 Oct 2015 9:45 am, "Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sunday,

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Monday, 19 October 2015 at 20:59:37 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: As a compiler (and only a frontend language at that) I care very little about any of that. Apart from predefined versions which are exposed to the language user code, making the rest work is Someone Else's Problem™ That's what I

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 19 Oct 2015 11:15 pm, "Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On Monday, 19 October 2015 at 20:59:37 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> As a compiler (and only a frontend language at that) I care very little about any of that. Apart from predefined versions

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 17 Oct 2015 11:25 pm, "Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 16:55:06 UTC, Joakim wrote: >> >> On Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 16:38:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>> >>> Fantastic! >>> >>> Could you please send a PR

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 18 Oct 2015 9:45 am, "Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 07:37:55 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> Essentially, the reason D has not been ported to X has nothing to do with lack of compiler support. A compiler can always

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 07:37:55 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: Essentially, the reason D has not been ported to X has nothing to do with lack of compiler support. A compiler can always be built to target X, and if that wasn't enough, there are many ready built packages available that target

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

Am Sun, 18 Oct 2015 09:55:52 +0200 schrieb Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d : > On 18 Oct 2015 9:45 am, "Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d" < > digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 07:37:55 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: > >> > >>

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 2015-10-18 09:55, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: In it's runtime? Correct - assuming no one invents any new predefined version conditions in the process. :-) I'm pretty sure Dan has added/is planning to add new version identifiers for iOS. It might be that the OSX version identifier

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 16:00:11 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2015-10-18 09:55, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: In it's runtime? Correct - assuming no one invents any new predefined version conditions in the process. :-) I'm pretty sure Dan has added/is planning to add new

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 23:42:01 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/17/2015 2:24 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: I wish the extent of platform support for GDC and LDC was clearer. I decided not to list any platforms on D's download page unless support for those platforms was rock-solid and

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 10/18/15 2:57 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: I think we are good as we are right now. There is an "others" link on the download page, so people interested in support for less common or less supported platforms can find said information on the wiki. Mobile support is huge, and one of the

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 04:05:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 10/18/15 2:57 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: I think we are good as we are right now. There is an "others" link on the download page, so people interested in support for less common or less supported platforms can find

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 10/17/2015 2:03 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 10/17/15 7:55 PM, Joakim wrote: On Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 16:38:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Fantastic! Could you please send a PR to upgrade http://dlang.org/download.html so it lists the iOS and (later) Android downloads? Even

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 10/17/2015 2:24 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: I wish the extent of platform support for GDC and LDC was clearer. I decided not to list any platforms on D's download page unless support for those platforms was rock-solid and is expected to work. At least at that time, iOS and Android support,

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 04:05:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 10/18/15 2:57 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: I think we are good as we are right now. There is an "others" link on the download page, so people interested in support for less common or less supported platforms can find

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 04:13:56 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm as excited about this as anyone, but at the same time I don't want people mocking us for claiming support when what we have is a proof-of-concept provided by a third-party fork. To elaborate on this

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 14:37:46 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 10:25:07 UTC, Chris wrote: Apart from that, I think the fact that D is still not fit for mobile platforms is a huge drawback. Loads of people want apps, loads of people have some sort of smart phone,

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 16:38:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Fantastic! Could you please send a PR to upgrade http://dlang.org/download.html so it lists the iOS and (later) Android downloads? Even I didn't know ldc has an iOS download! -- Andrei Will do. Support for both

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 10:25:07 UTC, Chris wrote: Apart from that, I think the fact that D is still not fit for mobile platforms is a huge drawback. Loads of people want apps, loads of people have some sort of smart phone, tablet or whatever. Sometimes I think that we're getting sucked

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 08:29:18 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 09:09:22 UTC, Chris wrote: I agree with logicchains. The impression people have is exactly this. Go = neat and tidy, D = mess. Do people have the same impression from generic code in Go? Crutches help

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 10/17/15 5:37 PM, Joakim wrote: On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 10:25:07 UTC, Chris wrote: Apart from that, I think the fact that D is still not fit for mobile platforms is a huge drawback. Loads of people want apps, loads of people have some sort of smart phone, tablet or whatever. Sometimes

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 10/17/15 7:55 PM, Joakim wrote: On Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 16:38:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Fantastic! Could you please send a PR to upgrade http://dlang.org/download.html so it lists the iOS and (later) Android downloads? Even I didn't know ldc has an iOS download! -- Andrei

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 16:55:06 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Saturday, 17 October 2015 at 16:38:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Fantastic! Could you please send a PR to upgrade http://dlang.org/download.html so it lists the iOS and (later) Android downloads? Even I didn't know ldc has

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 2015-10-16 12:27, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: The areas I consider incomplete: * Language definition, e.g. "shared". * Language definition _writeup_, we need to be a lot more precise than we currently are. * Process for introducing new features, i.e. right now we seem to have some of the

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 08:03:06 UTC, German Diago wrote: [...] Just a small note FYI, there's an easy way to get a feel for the current state of GC reliance: void main() @nogc { // try stuff out }

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 09:09:22 UTC, Chris wrote: I agree with logicchains. The impression people have is exactly this. Go = neat and tidy, D = mess. This has nothing to do with whether Go is actually finished and tidy or not. The core Go language specification is finished,

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 10:24:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I would agree that we're less polished than Go and other languages. This is something we need to work on - just show the world a completely defined and implemented language. -- Andrei Hello Andrei. A bit off-topic, but,

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 09:09:22 UTC, Chris wrote: I agree with logicchains. The impression people have is exactly this. Go = neat and tidy, D = mess. Do people have the same impression from generic code in Go?

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 09:01:41 UTC, German Diago wrote: On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 08:58:25 UTC, John Colvin wrote: void main() @nogc { // try stuff out } Thanks for the tip. Is this 100% reliable? As far as I know, yes. @nogc can be put on any function and will guarantee

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 08:43:12 UTC, German Diago wrote: On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 08:11:18 UTC, John Colvin wrote: On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 08:03:06 UTC, German Diago wrote: [...] Just a small note FYI, there's an easy way to get a feel for the current state of GC reliance:

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 08:58:25 UTC, John Colvin wrote: void main() @nogc { // try stuff out } Thanks for the tip. Is this 100% reliable? As far as I know, yes. @nogc can be put on any function and will guarantee that no GC code will run inside that function or anything else it

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 10/16/15 11:03 AM, German Diago wrote: - Garbage collector. I think there was a plan for Phobos without GC, but... what about the run-time, can be disabled? I am not sure this meets the requirements of some embedded devices I work/have worked with. - Memory-control: Allocators. I saw this has

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 08:29:18 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 09:09:22 UTC, Chris wrote: I agree with logicchains. The impression people have is exactly this. Go = neat and tidy, D = mess. Do people have the same impression from generic code in Go? It doesn't

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 08:11:18 UTC, John Colvin wrote: On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 08:03:06 UTC, German Diago wrote: [...] Just a small note FYI, there's an easy way to get a feel for the current state of GC reliance: void main() @nogc { // try stuff out } Thanks for the

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 10:25:07 UTC, Chris wrote: Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but mobile is not yet 100%. Ah, that? But lack of support is not a mess, it's a clear, neat and tidy lack of 100% support for ARM.

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 12:01:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 10:25:07 UTC, Chris wrote: Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but mobile is not yet 100%. Ah, that? But lack of support is not a mess, it's a clear, neat and tidy lack of 100% support for ARM. I

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 10:25:07 UTC, Chris wrote: On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 08:29:18 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 09:09:22 UTC, Chris wrote: I agree with logicchains. The impression people have is exactly this. Go = neat and tidy, D = mess. Do people have

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 14:36:55 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 10:25:07 UTC, Chris wrote: On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 08:29:18 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 09:09:22 UTC, Chris wrote: [...] Do people have the same impression from

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 14:36:55 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: Fwiw I think it's okay on ARM linux. I have compiled and run small programs on my phone (a oneplusone). Thanks to dicebot you can just install with yaourt. That's not what you meant of course, and Android ARM seems a little

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 10/15/15 11:11 AM, Kagamin wrote: On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 06:36:32 UTC, logicchains wrote: Even if it's not entirely logical, all these unfinished aspects can add up to produce a less positive aesthetic impression of the language compared to a language that comes across as more

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 08:11:20 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 06:36:32 UTC, logicchains wrote: Even if it's not entirely logical, all these unfinished aspects can add up to produce a less positive aesthetic impression of the language compared to a language that

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 06:36:32 UTC, logicchains wrote: Even if it's not entirely logical, all these unfinished aspects can add up to produce a less positive aesthetic impression of the language compared to a language that comes across as more polished. If go is finished, why

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Wednesday, 14 October 2015 at 16:07:01 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Wednesday, 14 October 2015 at 13:21:28 UTC, logicchains wrote: On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 19:13:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/13/2015 6:36 AM, Daniel Kozak wrote:

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 19:16:08 UTC, deadalnix wrote: Making a roadmap when you don't have people you pay to stick to it doesn't really work. It's like trying to transport frogs using a wheelbarrel. s/barrel/barrow/

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 18:38:38 UTC, Charles Pritchard wrote: On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 10:24:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 10/15/15 11:11 AM, Kagamin wrote: On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 06:36:32 UTC, logicchains wrote: Even if it's not entirely logical, all these

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 10:24:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 10/15/15 11:11 AM, Kagamin wrote: On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 06:36:32 UTC, logicchains wrote: Even if it's not entirely logical, all these unfinished aspects can add up to produce a less positive aesthetic

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Wednesday, 14 October 2015 at 13:21:28 UTC, logicchains wrote: On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 19:13:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/13/2015 6:36 AM, Daniel Kozak wrote: lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html Maybe we could have something similar in D community No.

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 19:13:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/13/2015 6:36 AM, Daniel Kozak wrote: lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html Maybe we could have something similar in D community No. People who need to be told what decent behavior is won't pay

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Wednesday, 14 October 2015 at 09:50:31 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote: On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 19:13:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/13/2015 6:36 AM, Daniel Kozak wrote: lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html Maybe we could have something similar in D community No.

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 19:13:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/13/2015 6:36 AM, Daniel Kozak wrote: lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html Maybe we could have something similar in D community No. People who need to be told what decent behavior is won't pay

[OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html Maybe we could have something similar in D community

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 10/13/2015 6:36 AM, Daniel Kozak wrote: lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html Maybe we could have something similar in D community No. People who need to be told what decent behavior is won't pay attention to such a document.

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 19:13:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/13/2015 6:36 AM, Daniel Kozak wrote: lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html Maybe we could have something similar in D community No. People who need to be told what decent behavior is won't pay

Re: [OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 19:13:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/13/2015 6:36 AM, Daniel Kozak wrote: lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html Maybe we could have something similar in D community No. People who need to be told what decent behavior is won't pay