Andrew Edwards has done a great job with the recent release, but needs to step down because he's busy with other pursuits.

We need a release lieutenant who would carry us through the release process. Please tender your application by replying to this.


Thanks,

Andrei

On Monday, 8 September 2014 at 01:30:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Andrew Edwards has done a great job with the recent release, but needs to step down because he's busy with other pursuits.
>
> We need a release lieutenant who would carry us through the release process. Please tender your application by replying to this.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrei

Did Andrew leave any kind of notes about the process he ended up with? (If it is on wiki, link may be helpful)

On Monday, 8 September 2014 at 09:29:48 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Monday, 8 September 2014 at 01:30:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Andrew Edwards has done a great job with the recent release, but needs to step down because he's busy with other pursuits.
>>
>> We need a release lieutenant who would carry us through the release process. Please tender your application by replying to this.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Did Andrew leave any kind of notes about the process he ended up with? (If it is on wiki, link may be helpful)

Yes, describing or documenting the process would help people decide if they want to do it.

On 9/8/14, 2:29 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Monday, 8 September 2014 at 01:30:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Andrew Edwards has done a great job with the recent release, but needs
>> to step down because he's busy with other pursuits.
>>
>> We need a release lieutenant who would carry us through the release
>> process. Please tender your application by replying to this.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Did Andrew leave any kind of notes about the process he ended up with?
> (If it is on wiki, link may be helpful)

Thanks for your interest. Forwarded the question to Andrew to make sure he doesn't miss it. I take it you're on the cusp of volunteering? :o)

Andrei

On Monday, 8 September 2014 at 01:30:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Andrew Edwards has done a great job with the recent release, but needs to step down because he's busy with other pursuits.
>
> We need a release lieutenant who would carry us through the release process. Please tender your application by replying to this.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrei

It may sound a bit radical, but I think the release process can
be simplified a lot, if the 3 github repositories (dmd, druntime,
and phobos) would be merged.

For example, personally I find it quite annoying working with 3
different repositories for simple tasks as compiling a previous
phobos library with debug symbols or such.

The simple existence of tools like dvm or digger is a proof that
more people have the same problems. I know that these tools do
more than building sources from the 3 repositories, but on the
other hand there are also a lot of other tasks that these tools
does not support.

Speaking about a new release lieutenant, I can imagine that
working with 3 repositories instead of 1 is quite of a burden.
Think about the beta and release candidate phase... instead of
one list of open items you have 3 of them, each with own
specialties, maybe some correlated. It could work on paper, but
it does not fit in one's head (at least not in mine).

I have collected a few pros/cons about merging the repositories:

Pro:
- simplified release tagging and branching
- atomic commit of cross-repository changes
- easier to experiment with cross-repository feature branches
- single pull request queue offering a better overview about the
project
- easier grep, easier build
- simplified build documentation

Cons:
- migration effort (documentation, merge scripts)
- current work-flow adjustments
- the resulted repo history could be sometimes confusing
- lost github pull-request history

What do you think about this? Would it be worth the effort?
Destroy!

On Monday, 8 September 2014 at 19:51:58 UTC, Dragos Carp wrote:
> I have collected a few pros/cons about merging the repositories:

This topic has been discussed in the past. Some more points that I can think of:

> Pro:
> - simplified release tagging and branching
> - atomic commit of cross-repository changes
> - easier to experiment with cross-repository feature branches
> - single pull request queue offering a better overview about the
> project
> - easier grep, easier build
> - simplified build documentation

- easier to run the entire test suite
- much easier "git bisect"

> Cons:
> - migration effort (documentation, merge scripts)
> - current work-flow adjustments
> - the resulted repo history could be sometimes confusing
> - lost github pull-request history

- more difficult to assign ownership/responsibility
- forking just one component becomes more difficult
- more mixing of free and non-free source code in the same repository (although I heard splitting the DMD repo into two (frontend and backend) repositories was being discussed)

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Dragos Carp via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

>
> It may sound a bit radical, but I think the release process can be simplified a lot, if the 3 github repositories (dmd, druntime, and phobos) would be merged.
>
 ...

> Destroy!
>

These are separate projects/products, that just happen to be released together.  Merging things together would obfuscate this (even more than it is now).  How would you consume phobos with a different compiler, for example?

On Monday, 8 September 2014 at 21:03:07 UTC, Jeremy Powers via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Dragos Carp via Digitalmars-d <
> digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It may sound a bit radical, but I think the release process can
>> be simplified a lot, if the 3 github repositories (dmd, druntime,
>> and phobos) would be merged.
>>
>  ...
>
>> Destroy!
>>
>
> These are separate projects/products, that just happen to be released
> together.  Merging things together would obfuscate this (even more than it
> is now).  How would you consume phobos with a different compiler, for
> example?

This would be the job of an installer build step... or just take
the phobos directory.

On Monday, 8 September 2014 at 20:56:51 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
> On Monday, 8 September 2014 at 19:51:58 UTC, Dragos Carp wrote:
>> I have collected a few pros/cons about merging the repositories:
>
> This topic has been discussed in the past. Some more points that I can think of:
>
>> Pro:
>> - simplified release tagging and branching
>> - atomic commit of cross-repository changes
>> - easier to experiment with cross-repository feature branches
>> - single pull request queue offering a better overview about the
>> project
>> - easier grep, easier build
>> - simplified build documentation
>
> - easier to run the entire test suite
> - much easier "git bisect"
>
>> Cons:
>> - migration effort (documentation, merge scripts)
>> - current work-flow adjustments
>> - the resulted repo history could be sometimes confusing
>> - lost github pull-request history
>
> - more difficult to assign ownership/responsibility

The directory structure will still be present. I don't think that
would be a problem, it works pretty well for bigger projects.

> - forking just one component becomes more difficult

Forking a component is a seldom event, working with all three is
the rule and we should strive to optimize it.

> - more mixing of free and non-free source code in the same repository (although I heard splitting the DMD repo into two (frontend and backend) repositories was being discussed)

On 9/8/14, 12:51 PM, Dragos Carp wrote:
> It may sound a bit radical, but I think the release process can
> be simplified a lot, if the 3 github repositories (dmd, druntime,
> and phobos) would be merged.

I'd support that if there's consensus. -- Andrei