On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 07:56 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[….]
Well this doesn't do a lot in the way of substantiating. I do want to be
illuminated. I want to get DVCS! And my understanding is that we need to
branch whenever we plan a new release, and cherry-pick bugfixes from the
On 8/2/12 8:47 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 8/2/12 5:00 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 07:56 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[….]
Well this doesn't do a lot in the way of substantiating. I do want to be
illuminated. I want to get DVCS! And my understanding is that we
On 8/2/12 5:00 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 07:56 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[….]
Well this doesn't do a lot in the way of substantiating. I do want to be
illuminated. I want to get DVCS! And my understanding is that we need to
branch whenever we plan a new release, and
On 2012-08-01 00:55, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
+1 ALL
Along those lines, I really think dmd-beta should me moved to the
newsgroups. Granted, I am biased since I hate mailing lists. But moving
it to NG means:
- Consistency with the rest of the D traffic.
- Easier to find/discover/subscribe.
-
On 2012-08-01 04:39, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Really? That should definitely be fixed then.
Yeah, you can't post via the newsgroup interface either (news.gmane.org).
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 01:10 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
[…]
We're already using Git.
I will be robust.
You may be making use of Git commands but you are still using
Subversion, you are not using Git.
To be honest there is never a reason to freeze a repository, even with
Subversion, and
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 21:45 +0200, David Nadlinger wrote:
[…]
No. The Go guys also use a separate Mercurial branch for
preparing releases, while development continues on the main
branch.
Just to note that Mercurial and Git differ crucially in how to work with
branches. The Go process is a
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 11:38 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[…]
You can't suggest a revolution - only carry it through. But I'm a bit
confused. We already use git, and the idea is to use it better. What's
the thing with subversion etc? Where's the revolution?
As has been noted many time
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 19:46 +0200, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
[…]
Does that mean that you do
git checkout featurebranch
git rebase master
git merge featurebranch // fast forward?
Rule 0: Never use rebase on a published repository.
Rule 1: Never use rebase on a published repository.
Rule 2:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 08:24:57 +0200
Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2012-08-01 00:55, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
+1 ALL
Along those lines, I really think dmd-beta should me moved to the
newsgroups. Granted, I am biased since I hate mailing lists. But
moving it to NG means:
-
Along those lines, I really think dmd-beta should me moved to the
newsgroups.
the newsgroup is already available via gmane.comp.lang.d.dmd.beta
On 2012-08-01 10:42, Mirko Pilger wrote:
the newsgroup is already available via gmane.comp.lang.d.dmd.beta
It's read only.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:54:17 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 7/31/12 11:46 AM, deadalnix wrote:
We actually have to « reverse » the way thing are done. You can't go to
the other side of a gap in 2 steps. We face a change that cannot be
gradually adopted.
process has much of this already but at the core the approach to the
mainline is CVCS not DVCS mindset.
DVCS is a lot about D - many people working on the project. We don't
have all that many, and it might help if I explained to you what I meant
by pull freeze this Sunday. It appears to me that you
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 12:00:16 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 11:43:41 UTC, Robert Clipsham wrote:
4. You can pull regression/bug fixes into the release branch
Just to clarify: »Pulling« in this context means
cherry-picking individual bug fixes critical for the
On Wednesday, 1 August 2012 at 11:56:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Well this doesn't do a lot in the way of substantiating. I do
want to be illuminated. I want to get DVCS! And my
understanding is that we need to branch whenever we plan a new
release, and cherry-pick bugfixes from the
On 8/1/2012 12:30 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 01:10 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
[…]
We're already using Git.
I will be robust.
You may be making use of Git commands but you are still using
Subversion, you are not using Git.
You keep blaming it on using subversion or
On Wednesday, 1 August 2012 at 17:04:06 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 August 2012 at 11:56:48 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Well this doesn't do a lot in the way of substantiating. I do
want to be illuminated. I want to get DVCS! And my
understanding is that we need to branch
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 23:40 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[…]
Walter and I will dedicate time after 2.060 to improving the process.
Improve implies tinkering at the edges. This situation requires a
change or perhaps revolution. I suggest just switching to a
ready-made DVCS / Git process that
On 2012-07-31 08:24, Russel Winder wrote:
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 23:40 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[…]
Walter and I will dedicate time after 2.060 to improving the process.
Improve implies tinkering at the edges. This situation requires a
change or perhaps revolution. I suggest just
On 7/30/2012 11:24 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 23:40 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[…]
Walter and I will dedicate time after 2.060 to improving the process.
Improve implies tinkering at the edges. This situation requires a
change or perhaps revolution. I suggest just
On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 01:10:35 Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/30/2012 11:24 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 23:40 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[…]
Walter and I will dedicate time after 2.060 to improving the process.
Improve implies tinkering at the edges. This
On 2012-07-31 10:10, Walter Bright wrote:
We're already using Git.
You completely missed the point. The point was not which VCS we use, it
was how we're using it.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Jacob Carlborg:
You completely missed the point. The point was not which VCS we
use, it was how we're using it.
Yeah, Walter has missed the point, but you aren't helping much.
Why don't you give links that explain what a Git workflow is, in
general? Or you explain the situation yourself.
On 7/31/12 2:24 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 23:40 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[…]
Walter and I will dedicate time after 2.060 to improving the process.
Improve implies tinkering at the edges. This situation requires a
change or perhaps revolution. I suggest just
Le 31/07/2012 17:38, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
On 7/31/12 2:24 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 23:40 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[…]
Walter and I will dedicate time after 2.060 to improving the process.
Improve implies tinkering at the edges. This situation requires
On 7/31/12 11:46 AM, deadalnix wrote:
We actually have to « reverse » the way thing are done. You can't go to
the other side of a gap in 2 steps. We face a change that cannot be
gradually adopted.
Then I need more education. I thought a good thing to do is use
branching for releases, and that
Le 31/07/2012 17:54, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
On 7/31/12 11:46 AM, deadalnix wrote:
We actually have to « reverse » the way thing are done. You can't go to
the other side of a gap in 2 steps. We face a change that cannot be
gradually adopted.
Then I need more education. I thought a good
Le 31/07/2012 19:46, Tobias Pankrath a écrit :
I'm not that fluent in git. Could you explain your approach further?
On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 at 16:43:19 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
We have found the following more successful :
- Developing in branches. 1 branch per functionality.
- Dev branches are
On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 at 08:11:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
We're already using Git.
Sorry, but this is completely irrelevant for the discussion. As
far as handling the »main repository« is concerned, Git and SVN
are not that different – you can do branches in both, even if
they are more
On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 at 15:54:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I thought a good thing to do is use branching for releases, and
that we can start doing that without much difficulty. No?
I think doing that would be a good idea. Some people might prefer
fancier branching schemes, given
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:46:52 +0200
David Nadlinger s...@klickverbot.at wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 at 15:54:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I thought a good thing to do is use branching for releases, and
that we can start doing that without much difficulty. No?
I think doing
On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 18:55:33 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Along those lines, I really think dmd-beta should me moved to the
newsgroups. Granted, I am biased since I hate mailing lists. But moving
it to NG means:
- Consistency with the rest of the D traffic.
- Easier to
On 01-08-2012 01:05, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 18:55:33 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Along those lines, I really think dmd-beta should me moved to the
newsgroups. Granted, I am biased since I hate mailing lists. But moving
it to NG means:
- Consistency with the rest of the D
On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 at 23:06:00 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 18:55:33 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Along those lines, I really think dmd-beta should me moved to
the
newsgroups. Granted, I am biased since I hate mailing lists.
But moving
it to NG means:
- Consistency
On Wednesday, August 01, 2012 03:00:51 Kapps wrote:
But you can't make replies, just like to the
phobos/druntime/internals lists.
Really? That should definitely be fixed then.
- Jonathan M Davis
On 29/07/12 13:43, Robert Clipsham wrote:
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 06:08:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Due to the upcoming release, there will be no regular pull
walk-through tomorrow. Thanks for the growing rate of contribution,
and let's resume the ritual next Sunday.
Andrei
I
On 2012-07-30 10:31, Don Clugston wrote:
I guess the easiest way to do this would be to have a single, permanent
branch called 'release', that is used for all releases, rather than
creating a release branch for each compiler version.
Yes, exactly. The only reason for keeping the branches
Le 29/07/2012 21:16, Jacob Carlborg a écrit :
On 2012-07-29 16:28, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm all for it. We're just too busy most of the time to stop and improve
our process. I think it's a good opportunity to do so right after 2.060.
It should have happened a long time ago.
Ranting
On 7/30/12 11:08 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 29/07/2012 21:16, Jacob Carlborg a écrit :
On 2012-07-29 16:28, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm all for it. We're just too busy most of the time to stop and improve
our process. I think it's a good opportunity to do so right after 2.060.
It should
Due to the upcoming release, there will be no regular pull walk-through
tomorrow. Thanks for the growing rate of contribution, and let's resume
the ritual next Sunday.
Andrei
On 2012-07-29 08:08, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Due to the upcoming release, there will be no regular pull walk-through
tomorrow. Thanks for the growing rate of contribution, and let's resume
the ritual next Sunday.
Andrei
Again, we _need_ to start using branches.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 29-07-2012 13:11, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-29 08:08, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Due to the upcoming release, there will be no regular pull walk-through
tomorrow. Thanks for the growing rate of contribution, and let's resume
the ritual next Sunday.
Andrei
Again, we _need_ to start
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 13:11 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-29 08:08, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Due to the upcoming release, there will be no regular pull walk-through
tomorrow. Thanks for the growing rate of contribution, and let's resume
the ritual next Sunday.
Andrei
On 29-Jul-12 15:11, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-29 08:08, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Due to the upcoming release, there will be no regular pull walk-through
tomorrow. Thanks for the growing rate of contribution, and let's resume
the ritual next Sunday.
Andrei
Again, we _need_ to start
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 06:08:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Due to the upcoming release, there will be no regular pull
walk-through tomorrow. Thanks for the growing rate of
contribution, and let's resume the ritual next Sunday.
Andrei
I really can't shake the feeling that you guys
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 11:43:41 UTC, Robert Clipsham wrote:
4. You can pull regression/bug fixes into the release branch
Just to clarify: »Pulling« in this context means cherry-picking
individual bug fixes critical for the release from the main
branch. Virtually all changes and pull
On 7/29/12 7:43 AM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 06:08:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Due to the upcoming release, there will be no regular pull
walk-through tomorrow. Thanks for the growing rate of contribution,
and let's resume the ritual next Sunday.
Andrei
I
On 2012-07-29 16:28, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm all for it. We're just too busy most of the time to stop and improve
our process. I think it's a good opportunity to do so right after 2.060.
It should have happened a long time ago.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
49 matches
Mail list logo
