On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 01:54:15 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
> Yes. I think that's a disaster. We need to figure out the right approach to solving that.
>

For a while, we were doing the review sunday. That was fun,
everybody was talking about the pull in IRC and we were going
from one to the other. Maybe it is time to start this tradition
again ?

On 2/11/14, 6:21 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 01:54:15 UTC, Andrei
> Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Yes. I think that's a disaster. We need to figure out the right
>> approach to solving that.
>>
>
> For a while, we were doing the review sunday. That was fun,
> everybody was talking about the pull in IRC and we were going
> from one to the other. Maybe it is time to start this tradition
> again ?

Are you guys up for it? I would.

Andrei

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:36:10 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

> On 2/11/14, 6:21 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 01:54:15 UTC, Andrei
>> Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Yes. I think that's a disaster. We need to figure out the right
>>> approach to solving that.
>>>
>>
>> For a while, we were doing the review sunday. That was fun,
>> everybody was talking about the pull in IRC and we were going
>> from one to the other. Maybe it is time to start this tradition
>> again ?
>
> Are you guys up for it? I would.
>
> Andrei
>

I loved it. I was fun to watch the autotester go nuts and get in there and review the changes prior to committing.

-- 
Adam Wilson
GitHub/IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 02:21:38 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 01:54:15 UTC, Andrei
> Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Yes. I think that's a disaster. We need to figure out the right approach to solving that.
>>
>
> For a while, we were doing the review sunday. That was fun,
> everybody was talking about the pull in IRC and we were going
> from one to the other. Maybe it is time to start this tradition
> again ?

I definitively would !

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 02:21:38 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 01:54:15 UTC, Andrei
> Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Yes. I think that's a disaster. We need to figure out the right approach to solving that.
>>
>
> For a while, we were doing the review sunday. That was fun,
> everybody was talking about the pull in IRC and we were going
> from one to the other. Maybe it is time to start this tradition
> again ?

Sounds like a really nice idea! I would come in and "listen silently" for sure! At least untill I'm knowledgeable enough :P

"Dmitry Olshansky"  wrote in message news:lddunp$jp7$1@digitalmars.com...

> Here is a sketch. Sorry couldn't make it more realistic -  I'm packing my stuff for tomorrow's flight (about 6 hours to go):
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Groups

This looks useful, I can't always remember who works on what.

I would probably prefer compiler internals questions were posted to the dmd-internals mailing list though, so everyone can see them/subscribe/search them. 

"Joseph Cassman"  wrote in message news:yqtkzxlmxepvdxkghqzg@forum.dlang.org...

> On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 20:02:45 UTC, Meta wrote:
> > However, I think DDMD will bring about a small bump in contributors. Personally, I haven't used C++ in awhile, and I've grown rusty. At this point, D is probably the language I'm most comfortable with, especially for hacking on something complex like a compiler. I imagine there are at least a few people who feel the same way and are waiting for DDMD before they take a crack at contributing.
>
> I have to agree. It's been over ten years since I have done any C++ seriously and as a result feel a lot of friction when trying to get up to speed on working with the D compiler code-base. Truth be told, that is part of the reason I like D in the end, it's not C++. Being able to use D to hack on the compiler would make it much more feasible for me to contribute.
>
> Joseph

Seriously, don't wait.  DMD uses a D-like subset of C++, and DDMD uses a C++-like subset of D.  Working on DMD is unlike any other C++ codebase I have ever worked on because of this, and is remarkably pleasant. 

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 11:01:52 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "Dmitry Olshansky"  wrote in message news:lddunp$jp7$1@digitalmars.com...
>
>> Here is a sketch. Sorry couldn't make it more realistic -  I'm packing my stuff for tomorrow's flight (about 6 hours to go):
>> http://wiki.dlang.org/Groups
>
> This looks useful, I can't always remember who works on what.
>
> I would probably prefer compiler internals questions were posted to the dmd-internals mailing list though, so everyone can see them/subscribe/search them.

Personally I hate dmd-internals because it's riddled with merge notification threads. Those github notifications really need to be in a separate newsgroup or we need to move discussions elsewhere because (at least for me) actual discussion threads get lost.

"Andrej Mitrovic"  wrote in message news:tandcufdqjfgwacvobpm@forum.dlang.org...

> Personally I hate dmd-internals because it's riddled with merge notification threads. Those github notifications really need to be in a separate newsgroup or we need to move discussions elsewhere because (at least for me) actual discussion threads get lost.

That's probably a good idea, it would be nice to have both dmd-internals and dmd-commits. 

On 2/12/14, 4:19 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "Andrej Mitrovic"  wrote in message
> news:tandcufdqjfgwacvobpm@forum.dlang.org...
>
>> Personally I hate dmd-internals because it's riddled with merge
>> notification threads. Those github notifications really need to be in
>> a separate newsgroup or we need to move discussions elsewhere because
>> (at least for me) actual discussion threads get lost.
>
> That's probably a good idea, it would be nice to have both dmd-internals
> and dmd-commits.

Could filters help?

Andrei