Now that 1.0* is here, what's are we going to do with all these attempts to round up what's needed for 1.0, much of which is still pending?

* Walter's actually called it 1.00, except in the compiler itself, which reports its version as 1.0.  On the basis that this particular versioning system was two integers separated by a dot rather than a decimal number, is 1.00 just 1.0 with half of it expressed in octal?  :-)

1. Pending Peeves is still, according to itself, a list of "issues that people feel need to address, hopefully in time for D 1.0".

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PendingPeeves

2. Then there was d1.0blocker, only 4 out of 15 nominees fixed and 0 out of 17 nominations answered.

http://tinyurl.com/ynfztu

3. In the same area is the Bugzilla tracker to "Get the documentation cleaned up for 1.0", which seemed to be a little more successful, with 11 issues fixed out of 17.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=677


I suppose part of the trouble is that, back in those days, quite a few of us expected 1.0 to be a milestone from a practical and not just symbolic POV.  And now we have a new question of which major version issues should be nominated to block now and what we should get the documentation cleaned up for now.

Any ideas?

Stewart.

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> 
> 2. Then there was d1.0blocker, only 4 out of 15 nominees fixed and 0 out of 17 nominations answered.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/ynfztu
> 

How many of these are DMD issues as opposed to D issues? Just scanning through the list, none of them seem to be issues with D its self. Mostly DMD and the docs.

I have always felt that DMD won't be ready for 1.0 until a while after D 1.0 is officially declared.

> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Stewart.

It is not clear to me whether D 1.0 meant freezing the spec or having a production-grade DMD. I really hoped that DMD would fix at least bug #621 (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=621) for DMD 1.0, because the Linux version is practically unusable with bugs like this one.


Stewart Gordon wrote:

> Now that 1.0* is here, what's are we going to do with all these attempts to round up what's needed for 1.0, much of which is still pending?
> 
> * Walter's actually called it 1.00, except in the compiler itself, which reports its version as 1.0.  On the basis that this particular versioning system was two integers separated by a dot rather than a decimal number, is 1.00 just 1.0 with half of it expressed in octal?  :-)
> 
> 1. Pending Peeves is still, according to itself, a list of "issues that people feel need to address, hopefully in time for D 1.0".
> 
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PendingPeeves
> 
> 2. Then there was d1.0blocker, only 4 out of 15 nominees fixed and 0 out of 17 nominations answered.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/ynfztu
> 
> 3. In the same area is the Bugzilla tracker to "Get the documentation cleaned up for 1.0", which seemed to be a little more successful, with 11 issues fixed out of 17.
> 
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=677
> 
> 
> I suppose part of the trouble is that, back in those days, quite a few of us expected 1.0 to be a milestone from a practical and not just symbolic POV.  And now we have a new question of which major version issues should be nominated to block now and what we should get the documentation cleaned up for now.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Stewart.