View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
December 10, 2012
Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
It's time to do a release; to that end we should be working on tidying up the 
regressions.

This will be the last official D1 release.
December 10, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On 10-12-2012 01:33, Walter Bright wrote:
> It's time to do a release; to that end we should be working on tidying
> up the regressions.
>
> This will be the last official D1 release.

A few pull requests I'd *really* like to have in this release:

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/340
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/361
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1145

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex@lycus.org
http://lycus.org
December 10, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 00:34:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> It's time to do a release; to that end we should be working on 
> tidying up the regressions.
>
> This will be the last official D1 release.

Totally amazing to read this. Thank all of you for your efforts!



Furthermore, is there a dedicated list of changes made to the D 
spec? Just to ensure that my parser still recognizes all language 
features ;)
December 10, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On 12/9/2012 4:42 PM, alex wrote:
> Furthermore, is there a dedicated list of changes made to the D spec? Just to
> ensure that my parser still recognizes all language features ;)

Going through the "What's New" section of the changelog should do that.
December 10, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On Sunday, December 09, 2012 16:33:44 Walter Bright wrote:
> It's time to do a release; to that end we should be working on tidying up
> the regressions.

Can we please get dmd pull# 1287 ( https://github.com/D-Programming-
Language/dmd/pull/1287 ) resolved before the next release (preferably by 
merging it)? If we don't, and we merge it later, then we'll have added the -di 
flag for nothing, causing people to start using it and then stop after the 
2.062. I think that it would be best if we did not cause that sort of churn, 
and I think that making deprecated warn by default will cause us far fewer 
problems with deprecated in the future and help us avoid breaking people's 
code when we actually have to change APIs for whatever reason. As it stands, 
deprecating _anything_ breaks code, which makes deprecated useless if we 
refuse to ever break people's code. With the pull# 1287, that would no longer 
be the case. Given how much you hate breaking users' code, I'm kind of 
surprised that you haven't merged it already. But regarldess, given the flag 
issue, I think that it should be settled before the next release rather than 
waiting.

- Jonathan M Davis
December 10, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 01:38:16AM +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 10-12-2012 01:33, Walter Bright wrote:
> >It's time to do a release; to that end we should be working on tidying
> >up the regressions.
> >
> >This will be the last official D1 release.
> 
> A few pull requests I'd *really* like to have in this release:
> 
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/340
[...]

+1.

Don't know about the other two pull requests, but this one is important
to Linux users because it causes compilation failures due to deprecated
octal literals.


T

-- 
It is widely believed that reinventing the wheel is a waste of time; but
I disagree: without wheel reinventers, we would be still be stuck with
wooden horse-cart wheels.
December 10, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 00:34:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> It's time to do a release; to that end we should be working on 
> tidying up the regressions.
>
> This will be the last official D1 release.

Several things :

1/ Is it possible to reenable the GC ? The argument saying that 
this is faster without only work on toy project. On any real size 
project, the huge amount of memory consumed cause swapping, which 
make things way slower.
2/ I'd really like to see that one fixed : 
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1313 Without 
that, it is basically impossible to do separate compilation, and 
one of the consequence is to make 1/ even worse.
3/ Now that UDA are in master, what to do with them ? They 
clearly are not ready for release.
December 10, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On Monday, December 10, 2012 08:11:52 deadalnix wrote:
> 3/ Now that UDA are in master, what to do with them ? They
> clearly are not ready for release.

Move them to a branch and remove them from master.

- Jonathan M Davis
December 10, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On 2012-12-10 08:16, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2012 08:11:52 deadalnix wrote:
>> 3/ Now that UDA are in master, what to do with them ? They
>> clearly are not ready for release.
>
> Move them to a branch and remove them from master.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
December 10, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On 2012-12-10 08:11, deadalnix wrote:

> Several things :
>
> 1/ Is it possible to reenable the GC ? The argument saying that this is
> faster without only work on toy project. On any real size project, the
> huge amount of memory consumed cause swapping, which make things way
> slower.
> 2/ I'd really like to see that one fixed :
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1313 Without that, it
> is basically impossible to do separate compilation, and one of the
> consequence is to make 1/ even worse.
> 3/ Now that UDA are in master, what to do with them ? They clearly are
> not ready for release.

4. What will happen to Win64, is that ready for release?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4 5
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home