On 12/15/2011 2:25 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/15/2011 4:16 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> I wonder if we can list breaking changes in a separate sections in the
>> changelog.
>
> Any bug fix is a breaking change - code can and does depend on bugs
> (often inadvertently).
>

I've never seen code depend on an ICE :)

Jonathan M Davis:

> On Friday, December 16, 2011 22:37:50 Christian Manning wrote:
> > ubyte[4] a;
> > auto x() {
> > return a;
> > }
> > void main() {
> > auto b = x()[1..$];
> > }
>...
> Regardless, the compiler shouldn't be ICEing though.

Is it in Bugzilla?

Bye,
bearophile

On Saturday, 17 December 2011 at 11:02:41 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
>
>> On Friday, December 16, 2011 22:37:50 Christian Manning wrote:
>> > ubyte[4] a;
>> > auto x() {
>> > return a;
>> > }
>> > void main() {
>> > auto b = x()[1..$];
>> > }
>>...
>> Regardless, the compiler shouldn't be ICEing though.
>
> Is it in Bugzilla?
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Looks to be the same issue as http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4414

Considering the rate at which bugs are being discovered and fixed, would it be possible to shorten the release cycle, say, every 2-3 weeks instead of 1-2 months?

On 03-01-2012 08:49, Caligo wrote:
> Considering the rate at which bugs are being discovered and fixed, would
> it be possible to shorten the release cycle, say, every 2-3 weeks
> instead of 1-2 months?

Perhaps some kind of experimental releases would be better. It could help getting new features out to the community (and thus tested) faster.

- Alex

On 03/01/2012 14:49, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 03-01-2012 08:49, Caligo wrote:
>> Considering the rate at which bugs are being discovered and fixed, would
>> it be possible to shorten the release cycle, say, every 2-3 weeks
>> instead of 1-2 months?
>
> Perhaps some kind of experimental releases would be better. It could
> help getting new features out to the community (and thus tested) faster.
>
> - Alex

Beta releases are made weeks before an actual release for testing on this mailing list:

http://lists.puremagic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

Web interface:

http://dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net/discussion/group/dmd-beta

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/

On 03-01-2012 15:56, Robert Clipsham wrote:
> On 03/01/2012 14:49, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> On 03-01-2012 08:49, Caligo wrote:
>>> Considering the rate at which bugs are being discovered and fixed, would
>>> it be possible to shorten the release cycle, say, every 2-3 weeks
>>> instead of 1-2 months?
>>
>> Perhaps some kind of experimental releases would be better. It could
>> help getting new features out to the community (and thus tested) faster.
>>
>> - Alex
>
> Beta releases are made weeks before an actual release for testing on
> this mailing list:
>
> http://lists.puremagic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>
> Web interface:
>
> http://dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net/discussion/group/dmd-beta
>

I mean something weekly or bi-weekly. Beta releases are only made very close to the actual release.

- Alex

On 03.01.2012 16:07, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 03-01-2012 15:56, Robert Clipsham wrote:
>> On 03/01/2012 14:49, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>> On 03-01-2012 08:49, Caligo wrote:
>>>> Considering the rate at which bugs are being discovered and fixed,
>>>> would
>>>> it be possible to shorten the release cycle, say, every 2-3 weeks
>>>> instead of 1-2 months?
>>>
>>> Perhaps some kind of experimental releases would be better. It could
>>> help getting new features out to the community (and thus tested) faster.
>>>
>>> - Alex
>>
>> Beta releases are made weeks before an actual release for testing on
>> this mailing list:
>>
>> http://lists.puremagic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>>
>> Web interface:
>>
>> http://dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net/discussion/group/dmd-beta
>>
>
> I mean something weekly or bi-weekly. Beta releases are only made very
> close to the actual release.
>
> - Alex

I just asked about this in D, but as there is a discussion here already: The auto-tester builds dmd++, why not let the latest binary that successfully passed the tests be available for download?

On 1/3/2012 6:49 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> Perhaps some kind of experimental releases would be better. It could help
> getting new features out to the community (and thus tested) faster.

We call them betas <g>.

But anyone can pull the latest from github and use it, many do.

On 03-01-2012 19:47, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/3/2012 6:49 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> Perhaps some kind of experimental releases would be better. It could help
>> getting new features out to the community (and thus tested) faster.
>
> We call them betas <g>.
>
> But anyone can pull the latest from github and use it, many do.

That's not very practical for most users. Some kind of ready-to-download builds would be much better. As others suggested, the auto-tester publishing builds for download would be ideal.

- Alex