January 08, 2013
Looks like Apple are turning Snow Leopard 10.6 into their equivalent of
XP:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9233244/OS_X_Snow_Leopard_shows_signs_of_becoming_Apple_s_XP

From the list on http://www.apple.com/osx/how-to-upgrade/ I cannot upgrade to Mountain Lion 10.8, and Apple provide no way of upgrading to Lion 10.7. Thus I am forced to be Snow Leopard 10.6 for ever more.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder


January 08, 2013
Walter Bright, el  8 de January a las 00:57 me escribiste:
> On 1/7/2013 8:17 PM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
> >And now I understand that D1 is no longer officially supported. If I understand properly D1 first release was 6 years ago.  Lets assume I would have started a product development with it say 2 years ago because it was deemed relatively stable then.  And now I want to support 64-bit Windows and my customers are starting to ask for Windows-8 support.  Or some other things gets in the way (a bug somewhere, Windows 9 getting released sooner because Windows 8 is not as popular as Microsoft would have hoped.) What would be my alternatives? Port all the code to D2?  Is this what will happen to D2? I'd like to know before I commit people and convince others.
> 
> The moment D1 was stabilized, work began on D2. It was always understood that D2 was the future, and D1 was the stable version. Supporting it for 6 years is a pretty long time in the software business.
> 
> At some point, you'll need to make a decision:
> 
> 1. move to D2
> 
> 2. merge things from D2 into the D1 you've forked

What about licensing issues, is it even legal to for D1's backend? I mean, I don't mind doing it personally, because I believe I won't have any problems. But company lawyers don't think so positively :)

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Es erróneo pensar que el repollo es una afirmación de personalidad del
volátil, es una verdura, es una verdura.
	-- Ricardo Vaporeso
January 08, 2013
Walter Bright, el  7 de January a las 13:27 me escribiste:
> On 1/7/2013 11:40 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >Andrei Alexandrescu, el  7 de January a las 08:31 me escribiste:
> >>One thing I want to do is enshrine a vetting mechanism that would allow Walter and myself to "pre-approve" enhancement requests. Someone (including us) would submit an enhancement request to Bugzilla, and then Walter and I add the tag "preapproved" to it. That means an implementation of the request has our approval assuming it has the appropriate quality.
> >
> >BTW, I wouldn't mind if you like to try this out with issue 7044 (see the pull request for more comments), which is really annoying us at work but I never got to fix because the lack of feedback (a perfect example of somebody willing, almost craving, to fix something and not doing it because of the lack of feedback).
> >
> 
> At this point, reading the discussions in the links, I don't know just what the latest proposal is.
> 
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/497 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7044 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.1605.1334108859.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com

The latest proposal is: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7044#c3

You commented about it, I replied to your comments, and you never commented back.

I also added me as assignee, I think it would be a good idea for people wanting to implement something (seriously), to add themselves as assignee. Doing so would mean that person is assuming a commitment to implement the feature if consensus is achieved. It would be the same as "preapproved" but from the other side. You could also prioritize and give feedback to issues with somebody assigned first.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Creativity is great but plagiarism is faster
January 08, 2013
Pierre Rouleau, el  7 de January a las 23:17 me escribiste:
> I agree that feature releases mostly also contain bug fixes. I should have said, and I was thinking about proposing a process where minor releases that would only include bug fixes, and where major releases would mainly introduce new features but would also include some bug fixes.
> 
> At work this is exactly what we do. And today, at work, I was just in a meeting evaluating bugs to identify bugs that will be fixed in a release of our product that will only contain bug fixes.  The fixes that are selected where selected based on their severity, the impact they have on end-users and the time it takes to fix them.

This is how most software projects works (specially open source projects). Major, minor and patchlevel version numbers, and have been explained and suggested here for ages.

At this point I would be happy if we only get minor releases from time to time fixing only regressions and critical/security bugs that can't wait for a next release.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can try the best you can
If you try the best you can
The best you can is good enough
January 08, 2013
On 2013-01-08 13:52, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 08:27 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

> Interesting, I was told not to try upgrading to Lion, but to stay with
> Snow Leopard.

I just did.

> MacBook2.1, Core 2 Duo, 2GB.

I think mine is from late 2006.

> This has a 64-bit processor, but 32-bit boot PROM, which means OS X will
> only run in 32-bit mode. This causes great pain since OS and processor
> report different states of being, leading to real pain  building stuff.

I haven't noticed any problems.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
January 08, 2013
On 2013-01-08 14:05, Russel Winder wrote:
> Looks like Apple are turning Snow Leopard 10.6 into their equivalent of
> XP:
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9233244/OS_X_Snow_Leopard_shows_signs_of_becoming_Apple_s_XP
>
>  From the list on http://www.apple.com/osx/how-to-upgrade/ I cannot
> upgrade to Mountain Lion 10.8, and Apple provide no way of upgrading to
> Lion 10.7. Thus I am forced to be Snow Leopard 10.6 for ever more.
>

They don't sell USB sticks anymore?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
January 08, 2013
On 2013-01-08 14:05, Russel Winder wrote:
> Looks like Apple are turning Snow Leopard 10.6 into their equivalent of
> XP:
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9233244/OS_X_Snow_Leopard_shows_signs_of_becoming_Apple_s_XP
>
>  From the list on http://www.apple.com/osx/how-to-upgrade/ I cannot
> upgrade to Mountain Lion 10.8, and Apple provide no way of upgrading to
> Lion 10.7. Thus I am forced to be Snow Leopard 10.6 for ever more.

Actually, I have the installation for Lion left on my hard drive.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
January 08, 2013
On 1/8/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> What about licensing issues, is it even legal to for D1's backend? I mean, I
> don't mind doing it personally, because I believe I won't have any problems.
> But company lawyers don't think so positively :)


If you've got a licensing issue, talk to me and I'll do my best to get it resolved for you to the satisfaction of your lawyers.

January 08, 2013
On 1/8/2013 4:52 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 08:27 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>
>> I'm running 10.7 on my white MacBook from 2006.
>
> Interesting, I was told not to try upgrading to Lion, but to stay with
> Snow Leopard.
>
> MacBook2.1, Core 2 Duo, 2GB.
>
> This has a 64-bit processor, but 32-bit boot PROM, which means OS X will
> only run in 32-bit mode. This causes great pain since OS and processor
> report different states of being, leading to real pain  building stuff.


So it won't run any 64 bit software?

For at least a couple releases now, dmd for OS X has only included the 64 bit binaries for dmd. Not a single person has noticed (at least nobody has commented on it).

We do build and test the OS X 32 bit dmd binaries, but left them off of the install package.
January 08, 2013
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:11:30 +0100
"deadalnix" <deadalnix@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 05:29:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:18:11 -0800
> > Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/7/2013 3:19 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:08:58 +0100
> >> > "deadalnix" <deadalnix@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> However, it is just to discover that this do not work :
> >> >>
> >> >> struct Bar {}
> >> >> auto foo(ref Bar bar) {}
> >> >>
> >> >> foo(Bar()); // Now this is an error !
> >> >>
> >> >> I still have code broken all over the place.
> >> >
> >> > IIRC, they tried to include this change in 2.060 (or was it
> >> > 2.059?),
> >> > but due to the major problems it causes, and the fact that
> >> > it *does*
> >> > make sense to use a temporary as an lvalue if you don't
> >> > intend to
> >> > use it again afterwords, there was a big discussion about it
> >> > on the
> >> > beta list and it was ultimately nixed. I'm disappointed to
> >> > see that
> >> > it snuck back.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Well, fixing the rvalue ref problem is still on the front burner.
> >
> > Wait, so are you saying that the above code which stopped
> > working in
> > 2.061 will start working again in a later version?
> 
> No, I think he meant that breaking that code was actually fixing the language because it shouldn't have worked in a first place (thing I disagree with but I understand the reasoning).


So then what's this "rvalue ref problem" that's "still on the front burner"?