I think this idea needs further consideration.
Summarizing the earlier discussion, there were four schools of
thought:
1. This is a good idea.
2. This is a good idea, but let's use github branches.
3. This is a good idea, but let's use newsgroup postings.
4. This is a good idea, but let's use
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:00:35 -0500, Piotr Szturmaj
wrote:
Peter Alexander wrote:
On 18/12/11 2:18 PM, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
"Exp" code may be shipped with each release just like "etc" code. Users
using experimental code should be aware of breaking changes that may
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:00:35 -0500, Piotr Szturmaj
wrote:
Peter Alexander wrote:
On 18/12/11 2:18 PM, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
"Exp" code may be shipped with each release just like "etc" code. Users
using experimental code should be aware of breaking changes that may be
introduced with each re
The idea reminds me of how extensions are managed in OpenGL:
http://www.opengl.org/resources/features/OGLextensions/
Often hardware vendors like S3, nVidia or ATi invented cool stuff, like
texture compression and were free to add a prefixed function name to their
drivers (S3_…, NV_…, ATI_…).
On Sunday, 18 December 2011 at 14:18:34 UTC, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
Hi all,
Normal Phobos submission procedure is usually like that:
1. write entire module from scratch by oneself
2. submit for voting
3. rewrite wrong parts, if there are none then add it to Phobos
4. otherwise goto 2
It is hard
On 12/18/2011 10:00 AM, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
> Peter Alexander wrote:
>> On 18/12/11 2:18 PM, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
>>> "Exp" code may be shipped with each release just like "etc" code. Users
>>> using experimental code should be aware of breaking changes that may be
>>> introduced with each relea
Peter Alexander wrote:
On 18/12/11 2:18 PM, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
"Exp" code may be shipped with each release just like "etc" code. Users
using experimental code should be aware of breaking changes that may be
introduced with each release or even with each commit.
Thoughts?
Isn't this just re
On 18/12/11 2:18 PM, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
Hi all,
Normal Phobos submission procedure is usually like that:
1. write entire module from scratch by oneself
2. submit for voting
3. rewrite wrong parts, if there are none then add it to Phobos
4. otherwise goto 2
It is hard for one person to write
Piotr Szturmaj Wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Normal Phobos submission procedure is usually like that:
>
> 1. write entire module from scratch by oneself
> 2. submit for voting
> 3. rewrite wrong parts, if there are none then add it to Phobos
> 4. otherwise goto 2
>
> It is hard for one person to write e
Hi all,
Normal Phobos submission procedure is usually like that:
1. write entire module from scratch by oneself
2. submit for voting
3. rewrite wrong parts, if there are none then add it to Phobos
4. otherwise goto 2
It is hard for one person to write entire module in such way it
satisfies eve
10 matches
Mail list logo
