November 26, 2019
On Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 04:16:39 UTC, mipri wrote:
> Of the requirement itself, I wouldn't mind either way. What's
> more important to me is that dub be actively maintained. On
> balance, between "tools (what tools?) become slightly more
> inconsistent for a while" or "dub doesn't get important updates
> because people see that even trivial updates like this one
> can't get done", I want the important updates.

I think a large part of the problem is that dub is effectively unmaintained. To be honest, as soon as I saw one person disagreeing I groaned and thought to myself "great, I'll never get this in now." My impression is that as things stand, dub is in "maintenance mode" - which effectively means that dub changes can only be merged in the presence of perfect consensus. Who has responsibility over dub? Who "owns" the code? Who can decide what goes in and what stays out in the absence of perfect agreement? Who can we appeal to with our usecases? By my impression, there is no such person, and this presents a severe flaw in the D ecosystem.
November 26, 2019
Am 25.11.2019 um 10:11 schrieb FeepingCreature:
> Semver 2.0.0 ( https://semver.org/ ) no longer requires the leading 'v' in version tags. What's the opinion of the community on whether dub should be changed to follow suit, ie. not require 'v' as well? (It's a trivial change code-wise.)

I don't think SemVer ever required a "v" prefix. The reason it is required by dub is on one hand that it is common practice and on the other hand it leaves the possibility to have version branches that can be clearly distinguished from tags.

Any number of other schemes could do the same thing, but I don't think it's a good idea to introduce inconsistency into the system without a very good reason. It may not be as bad as the awful JSON/SDLang split that happened previously due to wanting to cater all tastes, but it goes into the same direction.
November 26, 2019
On Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 07:23:08 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:

> I think a large part of the problem is that dub is effectively unmaintained. To be honest, as soon as I saw one person disagreeing I groaned and thought to myself "great, I'll never get this in now." My impression is that as things stand, dub is in "maintenance mode" - which effectively means that dub changes can only be merged in the presence of perfect consensus. Who has responsibility over dub? Who "owns" the code? Who can decide what goes in and what stays out in the absence of perfect agreement? Who can we appeal to with our usecases? By my impression, there is no such person, and this presents a severe flaw in the D ecosystem.

When I've visited the repo in the past, I've come away with the impression that the project is dead. I just commented on a couple of bug reports that should be closed. It's unlikely that there will even be a response to my comments. I could have just as well posted on an IRC channel where I'm the only participant. This is an embarrassing situation for the language.

It's time to move on from Dub. The D community is at this stage not capable of supporting such an ambitious project. Heck, we can't even provide real documentation, and that alone drives people away. We should as much as possible use infrastructure provided by other open source projects and worry about making the minor customizations needed to get it to work for our needs.

Some will say Dub works for them. Some will proclaim that it is a great piece of work. Nothing prevents them from continuing to use Dub to build simple D-only projects. There is no chance Dub will ever be a general purpose solution. Sometimes it's best to admit defeat and move on.
November 26, 2019
On Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 10:23:04 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> When I've visited the repo in the past, I've come away with the impression that the project is dead. I just commented on a couple of bug reports that should be closed. It's unlikely that there will even be a response to my comments. I could have just as well posted on an IRC channel where I'm the only participant. This is an embarrassing situation for the language.
>
> It's time to move on from Dub. The D community is at this stage not capable of supporting such an ambitious project. Heck, we can't even provide real documentation, and that alone drives people away. We should as much as possible use infrastructure provided by other open source projects and worry about making the minor customizations needed to get it to work for our needs.
>

So what replacement project that does builds, tests and version management (including downloads and version management) do you propose?
November 26, 2019
On Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 11:28:36 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:

> So what replacement project that does builds, tests and version management (including downloads and version management) do you propose?

Dub replacements have been discussed numerous times on the mailing list. I'm not qualified to make a recommendation. My point is that Dub has failed because its needs exceed the resources of the community, so we need to outsource as much of it as possible.
1 2
Next ›   Last »