On 9/8/2014 3:12 PM, Trass3r via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> with 3 pull request queues
>
> Good argument for the separation :)

And they're visible together via the auto-tester which happens to keep the lists concatenated.  I don't see the separation to be an issue either.

On 9/8/2014 3:51 PM, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I also don't feel like it will help much for release preparation.
> Bisection and history investigation - undoubtedly. But for release
> management building stuff is one of the easier parts.

I totally agree with this.  Anyone that believes that the checkout, build, and test steps are anywhere near hard or the hard part of the release process really doesn't have a good understanding of what it takes.  Those are the _easy_ steps, and so thoroughly automated/automatable that it's just a non-issue.

On 9/8/14, 2:29 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Monday, 8 September 2014 at 01:30:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Andrew Edwards has done a great job with the recent release, but needs
>> to step down because he's busy with other pursuits.
>>
>> We need a release lieutenant who would carry us through the release
>> process. Please tender your application by replying to this.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Did Andrew leave any kind of notes about the process he ended up with?
> (If it is on wiki, link may be helpful)

I'm not positive but I think he followed these:

http://wiki.dlang.org/Development_and_Release_Process
http://wiki.dlang.org/Beta_Testing


Andrei

On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 at 03:56:12 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Did Andrew leave any kind of notes about the process he ended up with?
>> (If it is on wiki, link may be helpful)
>
> I'm not positive but I think he followed these:
>
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Development_and_Release_Process
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Beta_Testing
>
>
> Andrei

Question about build boxes stands. Is it supposed to be done via auto-tester slaves or lieutenant needs to come with own set of build machines for all platforms? :)

On 9/8/14, 9:22 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 at 03:56:12 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Did Andrew leave any kind of notes about the process he ended up with?
>>> (If it is on wiki, link may be helpful)
>>
>> I'm not positive but I think he followed these:
>>
>> http://wiki.dlang.org/Development_and_Release_Process
>> http://wiki.dlang.org/Beta_Testing
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Question about build boxes stands. Is it supposed to be done via
> auto-tester slaves or lieutenant needs to come with own set of build
> machines for all platforms? :)

The lieutenant uses the existing infrastructure. -- Andrei

On 9/8/2014 9:36 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 9/8/14, 9:22 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 at 03:56:12 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> Did Andrew leave any kind of notes about the process he ended up with?
>>>> (If it is on wiki, link may be helpful)
>>>
>>> I'm not positive but I think he followed these:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/Development_and_Release_Process
>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/Beta_Testing
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> Question about build boxes stands. Is it supposed to be done via
>> auto-tester slaves or lieutenant needs to come with own set of build
>> machines for all platforms? :)
>
> The lieutenant uses the existing infrastructure. -- Andrei

Oh?  The releases to date have NOT used the auto-tester systems at all.  They're not really setup for others to use or for builds that need to be portable to other systems.  Do you mean Walter's machines?  Again, I don't think so since he's also never set them up for external use as far as I know.

I believe that some vm images were created by someone that Andrew used, and that's likely the best course to continue right now, imho.

On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 at 04:57:03 UTC, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 9/8/2014 9:36 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 9/8/14, 9:22 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> Oh?  The releases to date have NOT used the auto-tester systems at all.
>  They're not really setup for others to use or for builds that need to be portable to other systems.  Do you mean Walter's machines?  Again, I don't think so since he's also never set them up for external use as far as I know.
>
> I believe that some vm images were created by someone that Andrew used, and that's likely the best course to continue right now, imho.

That also means that initial time costs to prepare everything for release maintenance are rather high making it non-trivial commitment. I'll see what I can do later this week but no promises.

On 9/8/14, 9:56 PM, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 9/8/2014 9:36 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 9/8/14, 9:22 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 at 03:56:12 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>> Did Andrew leave any kind of notes about the process he ended up with?
>>>>> (If it is on wiki, link may be helpful)
>>>>
>>>> I'm not positive but I think he followed these:
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/Development_and_Release_Process
>>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/Beta_Testing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>>
>>> Question about build boxes stands. Is it supposed to be done via
>>> auto-tester slaves or lieutenant needs to come with own set of build
>>> machines for all platforms? :)
>>
>> The lieutenant uses the existing infrastructure. -- Andrei
>
> Oh?  The releases to date have NOT used the auto-tester systems at all.
>   They're not really setup for others to use or for builds that need to
> be portable to other systems.  Do you mean Walter's machines?  Again, I
> don't think so since he's also never set them up for external use as far
> as I know.
>
> I believe that some vm images were created by someone that Andrew used,
> and that's likely the best course to continue right now, imho.

s/uses/should use/

Andrei

"Dragos Carp"  wrote in message news:qjcqyddvsaopicjmeuoy@forum.dlang.org...

> It may sound a bit radical, but I think the release process can
> be simplified a lot, if the 3 github repositories (dmd, druntime,
> and phobos) would be merged.

Even if there were no downsides, it still wouldn't be worth the disruption. 

On 09/09/14 02:56, Dicebot wrote:

> Yeah those definitely look more interesting - as far as I can see
> subtree is bound to a branch and not to specific commit hash.

Since Git 1.8.2 you can bound a submodule to a branch.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg