On 14/02/2023 3:21 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 01:57:43 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
>> Same goes for things like GC's, it is its own specialty. We should be moving things out of dmd's repository, not moving them in!
> 
> What practical problem would moving the GC out of the DMD repo solve?

Not just the GC, almost all of the druntime shouldn't be in there.

There are three things directly tied to the compiler that do need to be in there:

1. Attributes
2. Intrinsics (*sigh* atomics not picking that battle with dmd right now)
3. Hooks, must be templated (has its own benefits in simplifying the compiler quite significantly)

Everything else is library code like bindings which super doesn't need a compiler developer to look at them. And that is the point, its different groups that should be maintaining it, merging it will not encourage it, it will only mean people step on each others toes more.

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 02:27:42 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
> On 14/02/2023 3:21 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 01:57:43 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
>>> Same goes for things like GC's, it is its own specialty. We should be moving things out of dmd's repository, not moving them in!
>> 
>> What practical problem would moving the GC out of the DMD repo solve?
>
> Not just the GC, almost all of the druntime shouldn't be in there.
>
> There are three things directly tied to the compiler that do need to be in there:
>
> 1. Attributes
> 2. Intrinsics (*sigh* atomics not picking that battle with dmd right now)
> 3. Hooks, must be templated (has its own benefits in simplifying the compiler quite significantly)
>
> Everything else is library code like bindings which super doesn't need a compiler developer to look at them. And that is the point, its different groups that should be maintaining it, merging it will not encourage it, it will only mean people step on each others toes more.

Ok, so I gather that no practical problem is being solved by said maneuver.

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 02:27:42 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
> On 14/02/2023 3:21 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 01:57:43 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
>>> Same goes for things like GC's, it is its own specialty. We should be moving things out of dmd's repository, not moving them in!
>> 
>> What practical problem would moving the GC out of the DMD repo solve?
>
> Not just the GC, almost all of the druntime shouldn't be in there.
>
> There are three things directly tied to the compiler that do need to be in there:
>
> 1. Attributes
> 2. Intrinsics (*sigh* atomics not picking that battle with dmd right now)
> 3. Hooks, must be templated (has its own benefits in simplifying the compiler quite significantly)
>
> Everything else is library code like bindings which super doesn't need a compiler developer to look at them. And that is the point, its different groups that should be maintaining it, merging it will not encourage it, it will only mean people step on each others toes more.

In what way would they step on each others toes (more than they do separately)? A single repo solves a real problem, which is all the PITA caused when doing cross-cutting changes and an overly complex developer experience full of silly pitfalls and careful juggling (oh, right, I need to git pull on the other repo as well, maybe? Which dmd is this building with again? Oh damn I forgot to switch branches in 3 places at once). Putting aside status quo bias, any separation should also solve something comparable.