Monorepo?

On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 04:48:51PM +0000, Mathias LANG via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 10:22:32 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> > Now that dmd/druntime is in one repo, is there a good reason to not include Phobos?
> 
> Because it will inevitably lead to circular dependencies, something Walter is already complaining about.
> 
> There was an advantage in merging DMD and druntime: They are tightly coupled, and we often enough situations where you had to merge a PR in one repo to see if things were working in the other. We don't have that requirement in Phobos.

OTOH there have been a good number of occasions in the past where changes in DMD/druntime had to be coordinated with Phobos. Even today, I'm almost certain that you can only use a specific version of Phobos with a specific version of DMD; it's likely to fail compilation or behave incorrectly otherwise.


T

-- 
The fact that anyone still uses AOL shows that even the presence of options doesn't stop some people from picking the pessimal one. - Mike Ellis

On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 16:48:51 UTC, Mathias LANG wrote: > There was an advantage in merging DMD and druntime: They are tightly coupled, and we often enough situations where you had to merge a PR in one repo to see if things were working in the other. We don't have that requirement in Phobos. In theory, Phobos is supposed to be decoupled, but in practice, it isn't. That said, I'd rather fix the practice than the theory here. It *should* work better than it does.

Forums