View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
December 13, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 16:57:10 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:
> 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.
>
> Two things which I think we *must* address before the release, 
> otherwise they will hurt us in the long run:
>
>
>  - https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1287 
> (Make deprecations as warnings the default): Recently, an 
> option to show deprecations as informational messages (i.e. not 
> halting compilation) was added to DMD. Many people, including 
> me, think that this should be the default behavior, but Walter 
> seems to be against it for pretty much unspecified reasons. If 
> we do not finish discussion on this before the release, but 
> then decided to change the default behavior in the future, this 
> will cause quite a bit more confusion as the "-di" switch will 
> already have been released then.
>
>
>  - Regarding UDAs: Releasing them in the current, not very 
> well-tested state might not be the best idea, because we are 
> effectively setting the design the stone, at least if we don't 
> put a large »experimental« tag on them. However, this is not 
> what I'm talking about here.
>
> Walter's current plan is to also keep the superseded bracket 
> syntax around, making use of it only a warning: 
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/a04cf864b932061ad7b72e7cad8b16fabc6a825a
>
> This is a very, *very* questionable decision, as people won't 
> even know that the syntax is deprecated if compiling without 
> any flags, it adds a big maintenance burden (now the feature 
> must go through the usual deprecation cycle), and there is no 
> reason for keeping it around in the first place. No, backwards 
> compatibility to an unreleased state of Git master is not a 
> valid argument, especially if the feature suddenly appeared 
> without prior notice.
>

+1 !
December 13, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

> On 2012-12-13 10:01, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> > I thought we had that with github, but then they disabled downloads.
> 
> Yeah, we _had_, they just removed it:
> 
> https://github.com/blog/1302-goodbye-uploads
> 
> -- 
> /Jacob Carlborg

What they had was obviously non-maintainable in the long term.  I'm not at 
all surprised it went away.  It won't hurt us for long.  I intend to have 
something to show by the end of the weekend using s3/cloudfront.
December 13, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On 12/13/12 2:28 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>
>> On 2012-12-13 10:01, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>> I thought we had that with github, but then they disabled downloads.
>>
>> Yeah, we _had_, they just removed it:
>>
>> https://github.com/blog/1302-goodbye-uploads
>>
>> --
>> /Jacob Carlborg
>
> What they had was obviously non-maintainable in the long term.  I'm not at
> all surprised it went away.  It won't hurt us for long.  I intend to have
> something to show by the end of the weekend using s3/cloudfront.

That's terrific, thanks Brad!

Andrei
December 13, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:22:55 -0800, Jeff Nowakowski <jeff@dilacero.org>  
wrote:

> On 12/12/2012 04:45 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> Though one of the downsides would be that if I were to leave, so would  
>> the site.
>
> For the stability of the project, D needs more commodity-based services  
> like Amazon S3, and less volunteer-hosted, ad hoc services administered  
> by people in their spare time. If D can raise $30k for a one-time  
> conference, raising the money to host project files should be a  
> no-brainer.

Why not just use BitTorrent?
December 13, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On 2012-12-13 18:27, Iain Buclaw wrote:

> I am confused at this commit also.

Walter argues that people are already using it so it can't just be 
removed. I say, they're using an unreleased version of DMD, this is to 
be expected.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
December 13, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On 12/13/2012 11:33 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/13/12 2:28 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-12-13 10:01, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>>> I thought we had that with github, but then they disabled downloads.
>>>
>>> Yeah, we _had_, they just removed it:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/blog/1302-goodbye-uploads
>>>
>>> --
>>> /Jacob Carlborg
>>
>> What they had was obviously non-maintainable in the long term.  I'm not at
>> all surprised it went away.  It won't hurt us for long.  I intend to have
>> something to show by the end of the weekend using s3/cloudfront.
>
> That's terrific, thanks Brad!

I wholeheartedly concur!
December 13, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On 12/13/2012 12:46 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-12-13 18:27, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> I am confused at this commit also.
>
> Walter argues that people are already using it so it can't just be removed. I
> say, they're using an unreleased version of DMD, this is to be expected.
>

They have a large code base, and are using it heavily.
December 13, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 21:37:07 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 12:46 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2012-12-13 18:27, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>>> I am confused at this commit also.
>>
>> Walter argues that people are already using it so it can't 
>> just be removed. I
>> say, they're using an unreleased version of DMD, this is to be 
>> expected.
>>
>
> They have a large code base, and are using it heavily.

This was an unreleased feature. It was supposed to change and 
people using it must have known that.

You are engaging the whole community into something you dropped 
here by surprise and then claiming that some people uses. We 
don't even know who they are ! How can we support your point ?
December 13, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On 13 December 2012 21:37, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 12:46 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>
>> On 2012-12-13 18:27, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>>> I am confused at this commit also.
>>
>>
>> Walter argues that people are already using it so it can't just be
>> removed. I
>> say, they're using an unreleased version of DMD, this is to be expected.
>>
>
> They have a large code base, and are using it heavily.

People shouldn't be using development compilers in production code then. :o)




-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
December 13, 2012
Re: Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:37:07 -0800, Walter Bright  
<newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 12/13/2012 12:46 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2012-12-13 18:27, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>>> I am confused at this commit also.
>>
>> Walter argues that people are already using it so it can't just be  
>> removed. I
>> say, they're using an unreleased version of DMD, this is to be expected.
>>
>
> They have a large code base, and are using it heavily.


Why must the rest of the world suffer just because someone decided to use  
an experimental feature?
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home