One thing PHP has been good at is evolving, and introducing change in
the language (some can argument that the language is so fucked up that
this is unavoidable, so I do it now and we can discuss interesting topic).
I discussed that system with Rasmus Ledorf at afup 2012 and it something
that
food for thought:
http://semver.org/
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:49 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> One thing PHP has been good at is evolving, and introducing change in the
> language (some can argument that the language is so fucked up that this is
> unavoidable, so I do it now and we can discuss interesting topic).
>
> I discussed that syst
The system adopted in PHP works with a 3 number version. The
first number is used for major languages changes (for instance
4 > 5 imply passing object by reference when it was by copy
before, 5 > 6 switched the whole thing to unicode).
The second number imply language changes, but either non
On 12/07/2012 19:10, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
The system adopted in PHP works with a 3 number version. The first
number is used for major languages changes (for instance 4 > 5 imply
passing object by reference when it was by copy before, 5 > 6 switched
the whole thing to unicode).
The second numbe
On 12 July 2012 17:49, deadalnix wrote:
> One thing PHP has been good at is evolving, and introducing change in the
> language (some can argument that the language is so fucked up that this is
> unavoidable, so I do it now and we can discuss interesting topic).
>
> I discussed that system with Ras
On 12/07/2012 19:31, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 12 July 2012 17:49, deadalnix wrote:
One thing PHP has been good at is evolving, and introducing change in the
language (some can argument that the language is so fucked up that this is
unavoidable, so I do it now and we can discuss interesting topic).
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 18:49:16 deadalnix wrote:
> One thing PHP has been good at is evolving, and introducing change in
> the language (some can argument that the language is so fucked up that
> this is unavoidable, so I do it now and we can discuss interesting topic).
>
> I discussed that sy
On 12/07/2012 21:25, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
There would definitely be value in the long run in having a similar versioning
scheme, but I think that we're still ironing enough out that there's not much
point yet. We don't want people to continue to code against verison 2.X.Y
instead of moving the
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:57:31 -0700, deadalnix wrote:
On 12/07/2012 21:25, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
There would definitely be value in the long run in having a similar
versioning
scheme, but I think that we're still ironing enough out that there's
not much
point yet. We don't want people to c
Most ridiculous thing about D is that it breaks so much backward compatibility
that people just give up using it. Decent versioning like this might help
people stick to something.
Wake up, guys, it is 10+ years and *still* it haven't reached some form of
stable release.
Like I sad, engineering
On 2012-07-13 00:24, Adam Wilson wrote:
For example:
2.0.60 is the current HEAD. Bug fixes Only.
2.1.60 is the new feature branch. It is a GitHub fork of the current
DMD-HEAD owned by the same org as current DMD-HEAD. This way Walter can
work against both simultaneously.
We could have rolled th
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:43:40 -0700, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-13 00:24, Adam Wilson wrote:
For example:
2.0.60 is the current HEAD. Bug fixes Only.
2.1.60 is the new feature branch. It is a GitHub fork of the current
DMD-HEAD owned by the same org as current DMD-HEAD. This way Walter c
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 00:11:12 -0700, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-13 08:52, Adam Wilson wrote:
I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much community
disagreement with this...
If he's not against it, I see know reason why this haven't been done
already.
Concurred. Th
On 2012-07-13 08:52, Adam Wilson wrote:
I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much community
disagreement with this...
If he's not against it, I see know reason why this haven't been done
already.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Friday, 13 July 2012 at 06:52:25 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much
community disagreement with this...
I would not be against having development and stable versions,
but the price is not trivial: every pull request must be done in
at leas
On Friday, July 13, 2012 09:30:47 Roman D. Boiko wrote:
> So my point of view is that it might be too early to have such
> policy yet.
Which was my point. I think that we'll need to switch to a model like that
eventually, but things are still in too much flux for it to make sense yet.
Switching
"deadalnix" wrote in message news:jtn1ol$juu$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 12/07/2012 19:31, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 12 July 2012 17:49, deadalnix wrote:
One thing PHP has been good at is evolving, and introducing change in the
language (some can argument that the language is so fucked up that thi
On 13/07/2012 09:37, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, July 13, 2012 09:30:47 Roman D. Boiko wrote:
So my point of view is that it might be too early to have such
policy yet.
Which was my point. I think that we'll need to switch to a model like that
eventually, but things are still in too muc
On 2012-07-13 09:37, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Which was my point. I think that we'll need to switch to a model like that
eventually, but things are still in too much flux for it to make sense yet.
Switching now would just slow everything down.
We could have more of an experimental branch which
On 13/07/12 09:11, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-13 08:52, Adam Wilson wrote:
I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much community
disagreement with this...
If he's not against it, I see know reason why this haven't been done
already.
It has. It's called D1.
On 13/07/2012 15:17, Don Clugston wrote:
On 13/07/12 09:11, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-13 08:52, Adam Wilson wrote:
I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much community
disagreement with this...
If he's not against it, I see know reason why this haven't been done
alr
Jonathan M Davis:
I think that we'll need to switch to a model like that
eventually,
When D1 bugfixes stop?
Bye,
bearophile
On Friday, July 13, 2012 15:24:03 bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
> > I think that we'll need to switch to a model like that
> > eventually,
>
> When D1 bugfixes stop?
I don't see what the state of D1 has to do with anything other than the fact
that the closest that D has ever had to this
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 18:49:16 deadalnix wrote:
> The system adopted in PHP works with a 3 number version. The first
> number is used for major languages changes (for instance 4 > 5 imply
> passing object by reference when it was by copy before, 5 > 6 switched
> the whole thing to unicode).
>
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:58:22 -0700, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 18:49:16 deadalnix wrote:
The system adopted in PHP works with a 3 number version. The first
number is used for major languages changes (for instance 4 > 5 imply
passing object by reference when it was by
On Thursday, 12 July 2012 at 16:49:17 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Such a system would also permit to drop all D1 stuff that are
in current DMD because D1 vs D2 can be chosen at compile time
on the same sources.
This is how DMD v2 was developed at the beginning, I bet the
version 1 compiler still h
On 13/07/2012 18:58, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
So, in general, when stuff breaks, it's on accident or because how things
worked before was broken, and some code accidentally relied on the buggy
behavior. Even removing opEquals, opCmp, toHash, and toString will be done in
a way which minimizes (if n
"Roman D. Boiko" writes:
> On Friday, 13 July 2012 at 06:52:25 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
>> I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much
>> community disagreement with this...
>
> I would not be against having development and stable versions, but the
> price is not trivial: every p
On 7/13/2012 9:58 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
All that being the case, I don't know what this proposal actually buys us.
I tend to agree.
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:56:50 -0700, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 7/13/2012 9:58 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
All that being the case, I don't know what this proposal actually buys
us.
I tend to agree.
If this was the case; 2.059 would not be three months old with no 2.060 in
the immediate
On 2012-07-14 20:42, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:56:50 -0700, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 7/13/2012 9:58 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
All that being the case, I don't know what this proposal actually buys us.
I tend to agree.
If this was the case; 2.059 would not be three month
On 15/07/2012 01:56, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/13/2012 9:58 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
All that being the case, I don't know what this proposal actually buys
us.
I tend to agree.
After 10 years of D, nothing stable still exists. We may call 2.059
stable, but frankly, it isn't.
This have
There is one thing missing from developers perspective as far D is concerned:
Not all D users want to be beta testers. But they are all treated in such a way.
That is reason #1 I migrate away from D all my software. It is long process and
tough decision, but after 5 years of tracking D story I a
On Thursday, 12 July 2012 at 17:20:32 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On 12/07/2012 19:10, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
The system adopted in PHP works with a 3 number version. The
first
number is used for major languages changes (for instance 4 >
5 imply
passing object by reference when it was by copy before,
> OTOH, it may break the community yet again, which we certainly
> don't want, probably even less than breaking code.
> Also, the example of Python with two main stable branches that
> live in parallel is not very encouraging.
Are you kidding? Python should be used as example of how software sho
> OTOH, it may break the community yet again, which we certainly
> don't want, probably even less than breaking code.
> Also, the example of Python with two main stable branches that
> live in parallel is not very encouraging.
Also, check Python website: they recommend python v2 for all new user
On Sunday, 15 July 2012 at 20:44:01 UTC, Patrick Stewart wrote:
OTOH, it may break the community yet again, which we certainly
don't want, probably even less than breaking code.
Also, the example of Python with two main stable branches that
live in parallel is not very encouraging.
Are you kid
On Sunday, 15 July 2012 at 20:50:47 UTC, Patrick Stewart wrote:
OTOH, it may break the community yet again, which we certainly
don't want, probably even less than breaking code.
Also, the example of Python with two main stable branches that
live in parallel is not very encouraging.
Also, check
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:20:14 -0700, SomeDude
wrote:
On Sunday, 15 July 2012 at 20:44:01 UTC, Patrick Stewart wrote:
OTOH, it may break the community yet again, which we certainly don't
want, probably even less than breaking code.
Also, the example of Python with two main stable branches tha
On 7/12/2012 3:40 PM, Patrick Stewart wrote:
Most ridiculous thing about D is that it breaks so much backward compatibility
that people just give up using it. Decent versioning like this might help
people stick to something.
Wake up, guys, it is 10+ years and *still* it haven't reached some fo
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:36:06 -0700, SomeDude
wrote:
On Sunday, 15 July 2012 at 20:50:47 UTC, Patrick Stewart wrote:
OTOH, it may break the community yet again, which we certainly don't
want, probably even less than breaking code.
Also, the example of Python with two main stable branches tha
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:58:14 -0700, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 7/12/2012 3:40 PM, Patrick Stewart wrote:
Most ridiculous thing about D is that it breaks so much backward
compatibility that people just give up using it. Decent versioning like
this might help people stick to something.
Wake
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 14:58:14 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/12/2012 3:40 PM, Patrick Stewart wrote:
> > Most ridiculous thing about D is that it breaks so much backward
> > compatibility that people just give up using it. Decent versioning like
> > this might help people stick to something.
> >
On 7/15/2012 3:27 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
The problem is that we're still ironing out too much, and most of the breakage
relates to bug fixes, not new features.
There's been a lot of non-bug-fixing breakage, for example, renaming library
functions.
On 7/15/2012 3:00 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
Also, all the released versions of D are available for download. There is no
need to constantly download the latest if that disrupts your projects.
And with the comming deprecation of D1, what then?
It'll still be there for download for those that wan
On 7/14/2012 6:42 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I believe that there IS a problem here. There are people who, for various
reasons, cannot use Git HEAD, and they have open problems. They are stuck. I
believe that is the unstated impetus for this thread.
There is no answer to:
"Do not change things, bu
On 7/15/2012 10:25 AM, captaindet wrote:
pls make a fresh build available on a weekly or at least biweekly basis, just
with regressions fixed.
2.059 had only 3 outstanding regressions.
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 15:30:57 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/15/2012 3:27 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > The problem is that we're still ironing out too much, and most of the
> > breakage relates to bug fixes, not new features.
>
> There's been a lot of non-bug-fixing breakage, for example, rena
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:32:06 -0700, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 7/15/2012 3:00 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
Also, all the released versions of D are available for download. There
is no
need to constantly download the latest if that disrupts your projects.
And with the comming deprecation of D1, w
Adam Wilson Wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:20:14 -0700, SomeDude
> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 15 July 2012 at 20:44:01 UTC, Patrick Stewart wrote:
> >>> OTOH, it may break the community yet again, which we certainly don't
> >>> want, probably even less than breaking code.
> >>> Also, the examp
On 7/15/2012 3:43 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 15:30:57 Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/15/2012 3:27 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
The problem is that we're still ironing out too much, and most of the
breakage relates to bug fixes, not new features.
There's been a lot of non-b
On 7/15/2012 3:52 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
So the problem is semantics then? Because I dredge up another word to describe
what we are asking for if that's all it takes. But I don't think that anyone
else is going to read "stable" as "unchanging". Software is by definition
changing, or it's dead. It
SomeDude Wrote:
> On Sunday, 15 July 2012 at 20:44:01 UTC, Patrick Stewart wrote:
> >> OTOH, it may break the community yet again, which we certainly
> >> don't want, probably even less than breaking code.
> >> Also, the example of Python with two main stable branches that
> >> live in parallel
On 7/12/2012 11:52 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much community
disagreement with this...
Note this: http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/
I don't see how what we're doing is so broken.
Patrick Stewart:
Both languages have programming bugs and bad decisions. Python
fix them without disrupting schedule and usability. D says
"suck it up for next X years while we fix it" or "You have some
obscure 4 year old version without that bug".
Python C interpreter is also far simpler th
On 15/07/2012 23:36, SomeDude wrote:
On Sunday, 15 July 2012 at 20:50:47 UTC, Patrick Stewart wrote:
OTOH, it may break the community yet again, which we certainly don't
want, probably even less than breaking code.
Also, the example of Python with two main stable branches that live
in parallel i
bearophile Wrote:
> Patrick Stewart:
>
> > Both languages have programming bugs and bad decisions. Python
> > fix them without disrupting schedule and usability. D says
> > "suck it up for next X years while we fix it" or "You have some
> > obscure 4 year old version without that bug".
>
> Py
On 7/15/2012 4:15 PM, Patrick Stewart wrote:
We are coming back to dsource & Tango graveyard story. D had equally capable
and large community to. Its resources got wasted. People left. Huge amount of
work just wasted for nothing. On the other hand, Python has one of the
largest *operational* stan
On 7/15/2012 4:08 PM, Patrick Stewart wrote:
Second biggest flaw with D development is premature optimization opsession by
large number of devs. "We haven't make it work quite yet as specs define, but
lets us optimize it, so it can work incorrectly even faster!"
All versions pass the D test sui
On 7/15/2012 2:58 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
The idea that bugs and new features can and should be rolled into the same
release runs counter to every accepted best practice in both FOSS and Commercial
wisdom. The two have VERY different velocities, bugs can be fixed in days, but
new features take muc
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 16:07:40 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/15/2012 3:43 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 15, 2012 15:30:57 Walter Bright wrote:
> >> On 7/15/2012 3:27 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >>> The problem is that we're still ironing out too much, and most of the
> >>> brea
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:26:50 -0700, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 7/15/2012 2:58 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
The idea that bugs and new features can and should be rolled into the
same
release runs counter to every accepted best practice in both FOSS and
Commercial
wisdom. The two have VERY different
Walter Bright Wrote:
> On 7/15/2012 4:08 PM, Patrick Stewart wrote:
> > Second biggest flaw with D development is premature optimization opsession
> > by
> > large number of devs. "We haven't make it work quite yet as specs define,
> > but
> > lets us optimize it, so it can work incorrectly even
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 16:26:50 Walter Bright wrote:
> Sigh. Half say we release too often, the other half not often enough.
Which is actually one argument for going to a model where you have frequent
minor releases which only contain bug fixes and less frequent major releases
with the larger
bearophile Wrote:
> Patrick Stewart:
>
> > Both languages have programming bugs and bad decisions. Python
> > fix them without disrupting schedule and usability. D says
> > "suck it up for next X years while we fix it" or "You have some
> > obscure 4 year old version without that bug".
>
> Py
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:06:58 -0700, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 7/15/2012 3:52 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
So the problem is semantics then? Because I dredge up another word to
describe
what we are asking for if that's all it takes. But I don't think that
anyone
else is going to read "stable" as "
On 16/07/2012 01:06, Walter Bright wrote:
Frankly, I don't know how to do what you're asking for. D users, every
single day, clamor for:
1. more bug fixes
2. more new features
3. why aren't deprecated features removed more quickly?
4. why don't we add this breaking feature?
5. why did you add th
On 16/07/2012 01:07, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/15/2012 3:43 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 15:30:57 Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/15/2012 3:27 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
The problem is that we're still ironing out too much, and most of the
breakage relates to bug fixes, not
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 19:43:44 Patrick Stewart wrote:
> Completely not relevant. Number of developers have nothing to do with
> project organization. There is a lot of software there equal or more
> complex that are product of just a few or even single programmer.
Actually, it's _very_ relevant
On 16/07/2012 01:42, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 16:26:50 Walter Bright wrote:
Sigh. Half say we release too often, the other half not often enough.
Which is actually one argument for going to a model where you have frequent
minor releases which only contain bug fixes and
On Monday, July 16, 2012 02:07:13 deadalnix wrote:
> On 16/07/2012 01:42, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 15, 2012 16:26:50 Walter Bright wrote:
> >> Sigh. Half say we release too often, the other half not often enough.
> >
> > Which is actually one argument for going to a model where
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:20:33 -0700, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, July 16, 2012 02:07:13 deadalnix wrote:
On 16/07/2012 01:42, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, July 15, 2012 16:26:50 Walter Bright wrote:
>> Sigh. Half say we release too often, the other half not often enough.
>
> Wh
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 17:23:44 Adam Wilson wrote:
> I guess I just see it as differing definitions of "stable". For example,
> dsimcha was here not twenty hours ago praising D for how stable it's
> become.
>
> I think this is a pretty good summation of stable in the community project
> context:
On 7/15/12 7:06 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Frankly, I don't know how to do what you're asking for. D users, every
single day, clamor for:
1. more bug fixes
2. more new features
3. why aren't deprecated features removed more quickly?
4. why don't we add this breaking feature?
5. why did you add tha
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:36:28 -0700, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 17:23:44 Adam Wilson wrote:
I guess I just see it as differing definitions of "stable". For example,
dsimcha was here not twenty hours ago praising D for how stable it's
become.
I think this is a pretty goo
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 20:43:52 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> The key is that the branches are merged once a more risky branch is
> stable enough, and the essential ingredient is that git makes branch
> merging easy.
Yes. This is a huge advantage to using git. It's actually reasonably sane to
ma
On 7/15/12 7:15 PM, Patrick Stewart wrote:
We are coming back to dsource& Tango graveyard story. D had equally
capable and large community to. Its resources got wasted. People
left. Huge amount of work just wasted for nothing.
Actually a couple of weeks ago I was curious and collected a few
s
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:01:41 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 7/15/12 7:15 PM, Patrick Stewart wrote:
We are coming back to dsource& Tango graveyard story. D had equally
capable and large community to. Its resources got wasted. People
left. Huge amount of work just wasted for nothing.
On Monday, 16 July 2012 at 01:06:16 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:01:41 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 7/15/12 7:15 PM, Patrick Stewart wrote:
We are coming back to dsource& Tango graveyard story. D had
equally
capable and large community to. Its resources got wasted.
On 7/15/12 7:44 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I should note that we use this exact model for every project we have
where I work and that it is been highly successful at keeping those five
points of tension moderated. And our users can actually get work done
without waiting for weeks and months because t
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 21:11:12 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/15/12 7:44 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
> > I should note that we use this exact model for every project we have
> > where I work and that it is been highly successful at keeping those five
> > points of tension moderated. And our users
On 16/07/2012 03:11, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/15/12 7:44 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I should note that we use this exact model for every project we have
where I work and that it is been highly successful at keeping those five
points of tension moderated. And our users can actually get work do
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:11:12 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 7/15/12 7:44 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I should note that we use this exact model for every project we have
where I work and that it is been highly successful at keeping those five
points of tension moderated. And our users can a
On 16-07-2012 03:11, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/15/12 7:44 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I should note that we use this exact model for every project we have
where I work and that it is been highly successful at keeping those five
points of tension moderated. And our users can actually get work do
On Monday, July 16, 2012 03:38:37 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> I propose a slight variation:
>
> * master: This is the 'incoming' branch. Unstable, in-dev, etc. It's
> easier this way since pull requests will usually target this branch and
> build bots will test this.
> * stable: This branch conta
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:38:37 -0700, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
On 16-07-2012 03:11, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/15/12 7:44 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I should note that we use this exact model for every project we have
where I work and that it is been highly successful at keeping those
fi
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:28:36 -0700, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:11:12 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 7/15/12 7:44 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I should note that we use this exact model for every project we have
where I work and that it is been highly successful at keeping t
On 7/15/12 9:21 PM, deadalnix wrote:
What would be the difference betwwen dmd head and unstable ?
Isn't it more simple to merge in unstable only or both unstable and
bugfix at first ?
I think you're right, we only need the "stable/bugfix" branch.
Andrei
On 2012-07-15 17:35, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/15/2012 10:25 AM, captaindet wrote:
pls make a fresh build available on a weekly or at least biweekly basis, just
with regressions fixed.
2.059 had only 3 outstanding regressions.
my bad. i got the impression regressions were a bigger issue.
ju
On 7/15/2012 5:36 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Arguably, we've been adding too many new features (e.g. new lambda syntax and
SIMD support), given that we're supposed to be making everything that we
already have work properly, but those features haven't been breaking changes,
and presumably forcin
On 7/15/2012 5:45 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I think the problem is that in the real world, that state is somewhat unlikely.
For example, Walter is currently working on COFF support, this is arguably a new
feature (we already can make programs work on Windows). Programmers aren't
machines and fixing
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 23:00:01 -0700, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 7/15/2012 5:45 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I think the problem is that in the real world, that state is somewhat
unlikely.
For example, Walter is currently working on COFF support, this is
arguably a new
feature (we already can make p
On 7/15/2012 4:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
It needs to stop completely.
Most of the renaming of functions which has gone on has been because Phobos
has been inconsistent with its naming, which makes it harder to use and learn.
As that's sorted out (as has mostly been done), those changes wil
On 7/15/2012 4:53 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On 16/07/2012 01:07, Walter Bright wrote:
It needs to stop completely.
No. It hasn't been made for no reasons.
But yes, some code is broken in the process. This is exactly why we need a more
sophisticated versionning process (note the recurring pattern
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 22:55:40 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/15/2012 5:36 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Arguably, we've been adding too many new features (e.g. new lambda syntax
> > and SIMD support), given that we're supposed to be making everything that
> > we already have work properly, but
On 7/15/2012 11:06 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
And maybe it _was_ worth adding SIMD support now rather than
later, but it goes against what we said we were doing.
It was a leap of faith on my part, but I think events have shown that it was
indeed worth it.
On Monday, 16 July 2012 at 06:07:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Changing names is minute progress, and is too costly in terms
of annoying existing users and breaking their code.
Cost can be lowered - by introducing (semi-)automatic
refactoring/upgrade mode.
dmd -upgrade zzz.d
Compiler can do
On 7/15/2012 11:48 PM, RivenTheMage wrote:
On Monday, 16 July 2012 at 06:07:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Changing names is minute progress, and is too costly in terms of annoying
existing users and breaking their code.
Cost can be lowered - by introducing (semi-)automatic refactoring/upgrade
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 23:05:39 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/15/2012 4:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >> It needs to stop completely.
> >
> > Most of the renaming of functions which has gone on has been because
> > Phobos
> > has been inconsistent with its naming, which makes it harder to use a
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
