View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
July 31, 2012
Re: Pull freeze
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:46:52 +0200
"David Nadlinger" <see@klickverbot.at> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 at 15:54:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
> wrote:
> > I thought a good thing to do is use branching for releases, and 
> > that we can start doing that without much difficulty. No?
> 
> I think doing that would be a good idea. Some people might prefer 
> fancier branching schemes, given that handling them is much more 
> painless with Git than with SVN, but this doesn't prevent us from 
> implementing release branches as a first step.
> 
> What's also important from a »million users« point of view is 
> that the origins of every release artifact is traceable, both 
> internally and for users, both in terms of source code and 
> tools/commands to prepare the archives. This also applies to beta 
> releases: Please, PLEASE let's start to properly name them 
> (dmd-2.060-beta1.zip) along with tagging the respective revisions 
> in Git and keeping the old versions around, instead of just 
> overwriting a single archive with unknown (and routinely broken) 
> contents. Otherwise things are bound to become chaotic once more 
> than us 15-ish people actually test the betas.
> 
> Which reminds me: We really need to announce the beta releases 
> more publicly, i.e. in the forums, on the website, on Twitter, 
> IRC, etc. Once a release is out, we can't take it back, but I'm 
> sure there are many enthusiastic D users who wouldn't mind 
> running their projects/test suites against the compiler once 
> before the official release if they were only asked to. It's easy 
> to forget if you are subscribed to all the mailing lists, but the 
> visibility of an upcoming release is almost zero until it is out 
> of the door. Yes, we have [dmd-beta], but it takes extra effort 
> to subscribe to it – more people are subscribed to 
> digitalmars.D.announce via the mail gateway then to the 
> low-volume beta list!
> 

+1 ALL

Along those lines, I really think dmd-beta should me moved to the
newsgroups. Granted, I am biased since I hate mailing lists. But moving
it to NG means:

- Consistency with the rest of the D traffic.
- Easier to find/discover/subscribe.
- Easier to follow the branches of discussion: Not everyone's email
 client does threading, but it's standard on NG readers.
- We get forum.dlang.org integration and the associated visibility and
 google/bing-ability basically for free.
July 31, 2012
Re: Pull freeze
On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 18:55:33 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Along those lines, I really think dmd-beta should me moved to the
> newsgroups. Granted, I am biased since I hate mailing lists. But moving
> it to NG means:
> 
> - Consistency with the rest of the D traffic.
> - Easier to find/discover/subscribe.
> - Easier to follow the branches of discussion: Not everyone's email
> client does threading, but it's standard on NG readers.
> - We get forum.dlang.org integration and the associated visibility and
> google/bing-ability basically for free.

I didn't realize that beta was any different from the rest (I always use the 
mailing list). It _is_ part of forum.dlang.org already though.

- Jonathan M Davis
July 31, 2012
Re: Pull freeze
On 01-08-2012 01:05, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 18:55:33 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Along those lines, I really think dmd-beta should me moved to the
>> newsgroups. Granted, I am biased since I hate mailing lists. But moving
>> it to NG means:
>>
>> - Consistency with the rest of the D traffic.
>> - Easier to find/discover/subscribe.
>> - Easier to follow the branches of discussion: Not everyone's email
>> client does threading, but it's standard on NG readers.
>> - We get forum.dlang.org integration and the associated visibility and
>> google/bing-ability basically for free.
>
> I didn't realize that beta was any different from the rest (I always use the
> mailing list). It _is_ part of forum.dlang.org already though.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>

Yeah, but in e.g. Thunderbird you get a nifty overview of lists on the 
NG in a side bar which makes for super easy navigation.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex@lycus.org
http://lycus.org
August 01, 2012
Re: Pull freeze
On Tuesday, 31 July 2012 at 23:06:00 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 18:55:33 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Along those lines, I really think dmd-beta should me moved to 
>> the
>> newsgroups. Granted, I am biased since I hate mailing lists. 
>> But moving
>> it to NG means:
>> 
>> - Consistency with the rest of the D traffic.
>> - Easier to find/discover/subscribe.
>> - Easier to follow the branches of discussion: Not everyone's 
>> email
>> client does threading, but it's standard on NG readers.
>> - We get forum.dlang.org integration and the associated 
>> visibility and
>> google/bing-ability basically for free.
>
> I didn't realize that beta was any different from the rest (I 
> always use the
> mailing list). It _is_ part of forum.dlang.org already though.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

But you can't make replies, just like to the 
phobos/druntime/internals lists. I'd say that likely prevents 
people from giving feedback about the beta; it has a high barrier 
to entry.
August 01, 2012
Re: Pull freeze
On Wednesday, August 01, 2012 03:00:51 Kapps wrote:
> But you can't make replies, just like to the
> phobos/druntime/internals lists.

Really? That should definitely be fixed then.

- Jonathan M Davis
August 01, 2012
Re: Pull freeze
On 2012-08-01 04:39, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> Really? That should definitely be fixed then.

Yeah, you can't post via the newsgroup interface either (news.gmane.org).

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
August 01, 2012
Re: Pull freeze
On 2012-08-01 00:55, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> +1 ALL
>
> Along those lines, I really think dmd-beta should me moved to the
> newsgroups. Granted, I am biased since I hate mailing lists. But moving
> it to NG means:
>
> - Consistency with the rest of the D traffic.
> - Easier to find/discover/subscribe.
> - Easier to follow the branches of discussion: Not everyone's email
>    client does threading, but it's standard on NG readers.
> - We get forum.dlang.org integration and the associated visibility and
>    google/bing-ability basically for free.

I completely agree. I think Walter once said it was a mailing list to 
keep it more hidden.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
August 01, 2012
Re: Pull freeze
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 01:10 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
[…]
> 
> We're already using Git.

I will be "robust".

You may be making use of Git commands but you are still using
Subversion, you are not using Git.

> > To be honest there is never a reason to freeze a repository, even with
> > Subversion, and definitely not with Git, Mercurial and Bazaar. With
> > these latter DVCSs, branching and cherry-picking, means that you just
> > branch from master to create the branch for the release. Whether this
> > becomes a full-blown maintenance branch or just a temporary release
> > branch that merges back post release is a fundamental question of
> > process on which there are opinions. Go has a "there will only ever be
> > the default branch" model,
> 
> Which is what we currently have with dmd on Git.

I don't see how you can be doing a freeze-free process if you declare a
freeze. There are fundamental and crucial differences between master
HEAD in Git and trunk in Subversion. This whole thread is about not
using Subversion trunk thinking when using Git master HEAD.

To say more would be to repeat what has already been repeated.

-- 
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
August 01, 2012
Re: Pull freeze
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 21:45 +0200, David Nadlinger wrote:
[…]
> No. The Go guys also use a separate Mercurial branch for 
> preparing releases, while development continues on the main 
> branch.

Just to note that Mercurial and Git differ crucially in how to work with
branches. The Go process is a Mercurial one that does not transfer well
to Git.

-- 
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
August 01, 2012
Re: Pull freeze
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 11:38 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[…]
> You can't suggest a revolution - only carry it through. But I'm a bit 
> confused. We already use git, and the idea is to use it better. What's 
> the thing with subversion etc? Where's the revolution?

As has been noted many time now I'm afraid, Git is currently being used
as though it were Subversion. Subversion mind set is being applied when
using Git commands.  In changing from Subversion to Git all mindsets as
well as processes need to be changed. The revolution started with the
actual repository move, but sadly it was not carried through by amending
the processes.

[…]
> Agreed. But that means we'd need to use branching and tagging better, 
> not to "revolutionize" things.

Well actually there is an element of using branching and tagging at all.
Branching and tagging in Subversion is cheap in the database and very
expensive for clients. Worse merging still remains a problem for
Subversion hence branching is a tool of last resort. Branching, tagging
and merging are cheap for Git, but there needs to be a move from CVCS
thinking to DVCS thinking on the part of those people with write
permission to the mainline.

[…]
> To be honest I think we've reaped a lot of low-hanging fruit so far. 
> Improving the process will bring some marginal efficiency improvements, 
> but adding more good committers and contributors would be much more 
> impactful. As far as I can tell there's not (there used to be) a hoard 
> of disgruntled contributors unable to push things forward.

This paragraph appears (apologies if I have it wrong) to highlight part
of the problem. The way you speak of committers and contributors
indicates Subversion hangover.  DVCS is about having reviewers of
changesets, and gatekeepers who make the merges into the mainline. The D
process has much of this already but at the core the approach to the
mainline is CVCS not DVCS mindset. 

> > If there isn't a new process in place immediately 2.060 is released and
> > master tagged, this I think this would have to be considered a "red
> > flag". The corollary is, I guess, to delay releasing 2.060 till you have
> > a new process as well as the release being ready to ship.
> 
> Why do you think that would be a good decision? There's a lot of value 
> added right now and a lot of pent-up demand for the many bug fixes and 
> improvements.

If the road to 2.061 starts without the new process mostly in place, the
danger is there will a mainline freeze to put out 2.061.

> > Of course none of this stops people preparing evolutions of the mainline
> > now even during a mainline repository freeze, this is DVCS / Git and so
> > Subversion trunk rules just do not apply!
> 
> Sure. I agree that should (and can easily) change. But I fail to get the 
> overarching theme of your post - I just see agitation, agitation, 
> agitation, but no coherence.

Sorry but if you haven't got the points already, then my points are more
than valid.

Anyway, it is clear you are asking me to shut up on this topic so this
will be my last post on it.

Back to Java :-((

-- 
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
1 2 3 4 5 6
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home