"Dave" <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cg3g1i$2lrs$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
>
> >
> > "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:cg34dh$2gv6$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >>
> >> "Matthew" <admin.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:cg32e6$2f4b$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> > Wouldn't one smart move at this point be to appoint a panel of NG
> >> moderators?
> >> >
> >
> >> > Another idea might be that you include DTL, DWT and Mango in your
> >> regression tests.
> >>
> >> That'll have to happen at some point.
> >
> > Good to hear you're responsive to that.
>
> How about something along these lines until Walter is ready to add those libs. to his reg. testing:
>
> Walter provides the "important" lib.

Don't know what you mean. Do you mean the import lib??

> developers (or other volunteers) for a
> given library with any build that passes his regression tests b4 general
> release, and they do their own regression testing.

Sorry, I must be thick. Can you rephrase?

> It would still be Walter's decision whether or not to release, no questions asked (why delay something that fixes many problems even if it re/introduces a few. If the problems turned out to be large with a major library or two, I'm pretty confident Walter would hold the release anyway).
>
> It would then be the responsibility of the lib. developers to post version specific errata along with the lib. download. i.e.: Linux, 0.98, DTL List, etc..., if Walter did decide to release a version.
>
> Who better than the lib. developers or other lib. expert to regression test the libs.?
>
> I realize that the lib. developers have already given a lot of their time, but a canned regression test can't take too long once developed and is probably 90% finished with the developers own test routines anyhow.

Sorry, Dave. I *really* must be thick today. I just don't get any of the details of what you're proposing. Can you rephrase so a two-dig IQ trog can understand?

:)

Matthew

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> escribió en el mensaje
news:cg3lvu$2nuk$1@digitaldaemon.com
| Sorry, Dave. I *really* must be thick today. I just don't get any of the
details
| of what you're proposing. Can you rephrase so a two-dig IQ trog can
understand?
|
| :)
|
| Matthew

I think he means what Walter has done with you in the past, Matthew, which is sending non-released versions of the compiler to test it. But instead of doing it only with you, it'd be done with those in charge of the most important libraries (DTL, DWT, Mango).

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal

Matthew wrote:
> 
> "Dave" <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cg3g1i$2lrs$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Matthew wrote:
>>
>> Walter provides the "important" lib.
> 
> Don't know what you mean. Do you mean the import lib??
> 
>> developers (or other volunteers) for a
>> given library with any build that passes his regression tests b4 general
>> release, and they do their own regression testing.
> 
> Sorry, I must be thick. Can you rephrase?
> 

Wow, my post was really cryptic. Sorry..

You had mentioned "important" library developers earlier, and my suggestion boils down to:

After a new release candidate passes Walter's regression testing, Walter would provide that build to the 'major library' developers for their own testing. This would happen before general availability of that build.

Since the library developers have already devoted a bunch of time to the libraries, volunteers could do the library regression tests also.

Just a suggestion to try and keep this off Walter's plate for a while and still include regression testing on major libraries. I have no idea if the logistics could be worked out or not.

- Dave

Carlos Santander B. wrote:

> I think he means what Walter has done with you in the past, Matthew, which is sending non-released versions of the compiler to test it. But instead of doing it only with you, it'd be done with those in charge of the most important libraries (DTL, DWT, Mango).

Exactly.

Thanks,

- Dave

"Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294@msn.com> wrote in message news:cg3ohg$2ooc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> escribió en el mensaje
> news:cg3lvu$2nuk$1@digitaldaemon.com
> | Sorry, Dave. I *really* must be thick today. I just don't get any of the
> details
> | of what you're proposing. Can you rephrase so a two-dig IQ trog can
> understand?
> |
> | :)
> |
> | Matthew
>
> I think he means what Walter has done with you in the past, Matthew, which is sending non-released versions of the compiler to test it. But instead of doing it only with you, it'd be done with those in charge of the most important libraries (DTL, DWT, Mango).

You mean an intermediate release to a "group" of "important" library writers.

That can work, iff such a group can be identified without consternation and rancour. I'll leave that to some else, methinks. :-)

"Dave" <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cg3r7p$2qi9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
> >
> > "Dave" <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cg3g1i$2lrs$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> Matthew wrote:
> >>
> >> Walter provides the "important" lib.
> >
> > Don't know what you mean. Do you mean the import lib??
> >
> >> developers (or other volunteers) for a
> >> given library with any build that passes his regression tests b4 general
> >> release, and they do their own regression testing.
> >
> > Sorry, I must be thick. Can you rephrase?
> >
>
> Wow, my post was really cryptic. Sorry..
>
> You had mentioned "important" library developers earlier, and my suggestion boils down to:
>
> After a new release candidate passes Walter's regression testing, Walter would provide that build to the 'major library' developers for their own testing. This would happen before general availability of that build.
>
> Since the library developers have already devoted a bunch of time to the libraries, volunteers could do the library regression tests also.
>
> Just a suggestion to try and keep this off Walter's plate for a while and still include regression testing on major libraries. I have no idea if the logistics could be worked out or not.

Ah. Perfect. (And inordinately better expl. btw. My hats off to you. Normally takes me three or four rewrites, if ever, to make that leap in clarity.)

Yes, I think this is a fine idea, and would work very well.

From my POV, the major library developers - which may well be a wider group than that mooted thus far - can, probably already, and most certainly should, have the infrastructure to make beta installations and conduct builds with old and new compilers, and such. So I can't see any major problems.

The only issue might be if said developers were unavailable for a while (as I am myself from time to time). I think they're free to miss an intermediate release, and it's tough if their code loses out. Doubtless they could "catch up" with the next intermediate or two.

Walter?

This is all fine and well, but addresses backwards-compatibility only. While that's a valid and positive thing to do, it doesn't address the point that library developers have (so far) not had much joy in having their issues resolved in a timely fashion (and Walter pointed out exactly why).

If the compiler had no bugs, and no requirements, then there would be no issue. One would be inclined to agree that it's less of an issue now than it was six months ago, yet Mango (for instance) is still waiting for resolution on things noted months ago. It's rather likely that others are in the same boat.

What you suggest is a fine notion. But please let's no lose sight of the other issues also ...


"Matthew" <admin.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:cg3tiu$2rpa$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Dave" <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:cg3r7p$2qi9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Matthew wrote:
> > >
> > > "Dave" <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cg3g1i$2lrs$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > >> Matthew wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Walter provides the "important" lib.
> > >
> > > Don't know what you mean. Do you mean the import lib??
> > >
> > >> developers (or other volunteers) for a
> > >> given library with any build that passes his regression tests b4
general
> > >> release, and they do their own regression testing.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I must be thick. Can you rephrase?
> > >
> >
> > Wow, my post was really cryptic. Sorry..
> >
> > You had mentioned "important" library developers earlier, and my
suggestion
> > boils down to:
> >
> > After a new release candidate passes Walter's regression testing, Walter would provide that build to the 'major library' developers for their own testing. This would happen before general availability of that build.
> >
> > Since the library developers have already devoted a bunch of time to the libraries, volunteers could do the library regression tests also.
> >
> > Just a suggestion to try and keep this off Walter's plate for a while
and
> > still include regression testing on major libraries. I have no idea if
the
> > logistics could be worked out or not.
>
> Ah. Perfect. (And inordinately better expl. btw. My hats off to you.
Normally takes me three or four rewrites, if ever,
> to make that leap in clarity.)
>
> Yes, I think this is a fine idea, and would work very well.
>
> From my POV, the major library developers - which may well be a wider
group than that mooted thus far - can, probably
> already, and most certainly should, have the infrastructure to make beta
installations and conduct builds with old and
> new compilers, and such. So I can't see any major problems.
>
> The only issue might be if said developers were unavailable for a while
(as I am myself from time to time). I think
> they're free to miss an intermediate release, and it's tough if their code
loses out. Doubtless they could "catch up"
> with the next intermediate or two.
>
> Walter?
>
>
>
>
>

Ok, I agree. So suggest something better.

"antiAlias" <fu@bar.com> wrote in message news:cg40vn$2tsi$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> This is all fine and well, but addresses backwards-compatibility only. While that's a valid and positive thing to do, it doesn't address the point that library developers have (so far) not had much joy in having their issues resolved in a timely fashion (and Walter pointed out exactly why).
>
> If the compiler had no bugs, and no requirements, then there would be no issue. One would be inclined to agree that it's less of an issue now than it was six months ago, yet Mango (for instance) is still waiting for resolution on things noted months ago. It's rather likely that others are in the same boat.
>
> What you suggest is a fine notion. But please let's no lose sight of the other issues also ...
>
>
> "Matthew" <admin.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:cg3tiu$2rpa$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > "Dave" <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
> news:cg3r7p$2qi9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > Matthew wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Dave" <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cg3g1i$2lrs$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > >> Matthew wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Walter provides the "important" lib.
> > > >
> > > > Don't know what you mean. Do you mean the import lib??
> > > >
> > > >> developers (or other volunteers) for a
> > > >> given library with any build that passes his regression tests b4
> general
> > > >> release, and they do their own regression testing.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I must be thick. Can you rephrase?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wow, my post was really cryptic. Sorry..
> > >
> > > You had mentioned "important" library developers earlier, and my
> suggestion
> > > boils down to:
> > >
> > > After a new release candidate passes Walter's regression testing, Walter would provide that build to the 'major library' developers for their own testing. This would happen before general availability of that build.
> > >
> > > Since the library developers have already devoted a bunch of time to the libraries, volunteers could do the library regression tests also.
> > >
> > > Just a suggestion to try and keep this off Walter's plate for a while
> and
> > > still include regression testing on major libraries. I have no idea if
> the
> > > logistics could be worked out or not.
> >
> > Ah. Perfect. (And inordinately better expl. btw. My hats off to you.
> Normally takes me three or four rewrites, if ever,
> > to make that leap in clarity.)
> >
> > Yes, I think this is a fine idea, and would work very well.
> >
> > From my POV, the major library developers - which may well be a wider
> group than that mooted thus far - can, probably
> > already, and most certainly should, have the infrastructure to make beta
> installations and conduct builds with old and
> > new compilers, and such. So I can't see any major problems.
> >
> > The only issue might be if said developers were unavailable for a while
> (as I am myself from time to time). I think
> > they're free to miss an intermediate release, and it's tough if their code
> loses out. Doubtless they could "catch up"
> > with the next intermediate or two.
> >
> > Walter?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

"Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294@msn.com> wrote in message news:cg3ohg$2ooc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> escribió en el mensaje
> news:cg3lvu$2nuk$1@digitaldaemon.com
> | Sorry, Dave. I *really* must be thick today. I just don't get any of the
> details
> | of what you're proposing. Can you rephrase so a two-dig IQ trog can
> understand?
> |
> | :)
> |
> | Matthew
>
> I think he means what Walter has done with you in the past, Matthew, which
is
> sending non-released versions of the compiler to test it. But instead of
doing
> it only with you, it'd be done with those in charge of the most important libraries (DTL, DWT, Mango).

I haven't really sent Matthew compilers to test, I just would send him one now and then to help him past a roadblock with DTL.

"Matthew" <admin.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:cg3tiu$2rpa$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter?

Sounds like just making a 'beta' available, like I do for DMC++.