https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2776



--- Comment #7 from Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> 2014-02-15 02:19:43 PST ---
Has this been verified to be only for D1?

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2776



--- Comment #8 from Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> 2014-02-15 02:44:31 PST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Has this been verified to be only for D1?

Not yet. But Walter is only converting the tags from D1.x to D1, and D2.x to D2.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2776



--- Comment #9 from Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> 2014-02-15 02:57:36 PST ---
(In reply to comment #8)

> Not yet. But Walter is only converting the tags from D1.x to D1, and D2.x to D2.

I see. But why not set it to "D1 & D2" when it's uncertain? Unless it's obvious it can only be for one version.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2776



--- Comment #10 from Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> 2014-02-15 03:11:26 PST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> 
> > Not yet. But Walter is only converting the tags from D1.x to D1, and D2.x to D2.
> 
> I see. But why not set it to "D1 & D2" when it's uncertain? Unless it's obvious it can only be for one version.

Because there are some bugs that are marked "D1 & D2" which /are/ actually both D1 and D2 bugs. We shouldn't introduce false-positives.

Anyway depending on arbitrary meaning for these tags is probably a bad idea, why not introduce a new keyword "verify_D2" or something like that for bugs that should be checked whether they might also apply to D2?

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2776



--- Comment #11 from Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> 2014-02-15 03:30:32 PST ---
(In reply to comment #10)

> Because there are some bugs that are marked "D1 & D2" which /are/ actually both D1 and D2 bugs. We shouldn't introduce false-positives.

Then setting it to D1 would not be correct either.

> Anyway depending on arbitrary meaning for these tags is probably a bad idea, why not introduce a new keyword "verify_D2" or something like that for bugs that should be checked whether they might also apply to D2?

Sure, there's already a version "unspecified". I'm pretty certain this particular bug applies both for D1 and D2, that's why I reacted.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2776



--- Comment #12 from Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> 2014-02-15 03:33:51 PST ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> 
> > Because there are some bugs that are marked "D1 & D2" which /are/ actually both D1 and D2 bugs. We shouldn't introduce false-positives.
> 
> Then setting it to D1 would not be correct either.

But it already was, he just changed D.X into D1. Or is that still an issue?

> Sure, there's already a version "unspecified". I'm pretty certain this particular bug applies both for D1 and D2, that's why I reacted.

Well either way we have a lot of work to do testing and verifying these bugs. :)

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2776



--- Comment #13 from Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> 2014-02-15 04:08:38 PST ---
(In reply to comment #12)

> But it already was, he just changed D.X into D1.

Just because it's set to DMD 1.x doesn't mean it's only for D1. The creator of the bug report could have set it to latest versions available when it was created.

> Or is that still an issue?

I'm pretty certain it is. I have not heard of any changes related to
pragma(lib).

> Well either way we have a lot of work to do testing and verifying these bugs. :)

Absolutely.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------