On 2/14/2014 10:39 AM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> As long as the closure process isn't a blind one.  Chances are reasonably high
> that MOST open D1 bugs also apply to D2.  The closure process must be an
> examination of the bug, not a mass update to close them.

Yes, that's critical.

On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 15:15:12 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Is there anything that can be done on our side to bring this to the front burner?

If I recall correctly, someone mentioned they need the concurrent GC that Leandro Lucarella implemented for D1.

--
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2/14/2014 3:06 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "Walter Bright"  wrote in message news:ldksbk$1pcn$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Do a search for "D2" and "D1 & D2".
>
> That excludes the bugs marked any of "2.000", "2.002", "2.003", "2.004",
> "2.005", "2.006", "2.007", "2.008", "2.009", "2.010", "2.011", "2.012", "2.013",
> "2.014", "2.015", "2.016", "2.017", "2.018", "2.029", "2.020", "2.021", "2.022",
> "2.023", "2.024", "2.025", "2.026", "2.027", "2.028", "2.029", "2.030",
> "unspecified", "2.031", "2.032", "2.033", "2.034", "2.035", "2.036", "2.037",
> "2.038", "2.039", "2.040" or "2.041".

True. And those should be retagged as D2.

> Any even better, it falsely exludes the bugs marked as "D1*" that are from
> before D2 existed and not necessarily exclusive to D1.

True, and those that are tagged as "D1" but really are "D1 & D2" should also be retagged.

On 2/14/2014 10:38 AM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 2/14/14, 7:17 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> So did you filter for "D2" and "D1 & D2"? That may be missing stuff, as
>> Daniel mentioned.
>>
>> I think it should be fine to mark D1 enhancement requests as WONTFIX,
>> what does Sociomantic think?
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> And those enhancement requests also likely apply to D2 as well.

Essentially, any mindless resolutions should not be done. Every one needs to be evaluated on its own.

On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 15:17:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2/13/14, 6:28 PM, Joseph Cassman wrote:
>> On Thursday, 13 February 2014 at 20:00:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 2/13/2014 10:34 AM, francesco cattoglio wrote:
>>>> Also, the current open issues list is HUGE, cutting it down by
>>>> discarding outdated stuff would be nice. Or at least, would
>>>> *look* nice. Honestly, the first time I took a look at D I was
>>>> like "wait, is this a programming language or a testbed for some
>>>> strange compiler?" :P
>>>
>>> Restrict your search for open bugs to "D2" and "D1 & D2" and you'll be
>>> fine.
>>
>> I never thought to do that as I have just gone by the "Bug Tracker"
>> graphic on the website up until now. Interesting idea. Here is a chart
>> comparing how the number of open bugs changes when those two filters are
>> applied to the "Bug Tracker" queries.
>>                          Before   After
>> Regression               9        9
>> Blocker                  17       17
>> Critical                 69       63
>> Major                    221      206
>> Normal, minor, trivial   1923     1420
>> Enhancement              1153     866
>> All Open                 3392     2586
>>
>> That large of a difference surprised me. Seems like it would help with
>> the impression of quality to someone first coming to the site by
>> displaying the data filtered for D2 instead. It also seems more accurate
>> since the D1 only stuff is not really being worked on and that page
>> presents sort of a TODO list.
>
> So did you filter for "D2" and "D1 & D2"? That may be missing stuff, as Daniel mentioned.
>
> I think it should be fine to mark D1 enhancement requests as WONTFIX, what does Sociomantic think?
>
>
> Andrei

Yeah, I may have marked the wrong search filters. Couldn't find a way to publicly share saved searches so to describe in words, I selected "D" for the Product category, "D2" and "D1 & D2" for the Version category, and the appropriate flags in the Severity category to match the query linked to on the "Bug Tracker" page. The header text shown above each query seemed to match that for each custom search, other than the text "D2" and "D1 & D2" which was added.

After reading through the other posts it sounds like a general triage is in order to determine the status of the flag marked in the Version category for the D1-related bugs. So those numbers in my original post are definitely suspect even if filtered correctly.

Joseph

On 2/14/2014 7:58 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 2/14/2014 3:06 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>> "Walter Bright"  wrote in message news:ldksbk$1pcn$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> Do a search for "D2" and "D1 & D2".
>>
>> That excludes the bugs marked any of "2.000", "2.002", "2.003", "2.004",
>> "2.005", "2.006", "2.007", "2.008", "2.009", "2.010", "2.011", "2.012", "2.013",
>> "2.014", "2.015", "2.016", "2.017", "2.018", "2.029", "2.020", "2.021", "2.022",
>> "2.023", "2.024", "2.025", "2.026", "2.027", "2.028", "2.029", "2.030",
>> "unspecified", "2.031", "2.032", "2.033", "2.034", "2.035", "2.036", "2.037",
>> "2.038", "2.039", "2.040" or "2.041".
>
> True. And those should be retagged as D2.


BTW, Brad showed me how to do bulk retagging, so I've been doing that at least for unresolved DMD bugs. I.e. all the 0.0..1.xx are being retagged as D1, and 2.00..2.xx are being retagged as D2.

Of course, many of the D1 bugs should be retagged as "D1 & D2", but they'll have to be gone through one by one to do that.

"Walter Bright"  wrote in message news:ldmpoi$o31$1@digitalmars.com...

> BTW, Brad showed me how to do bulk retagging, so I've been doing that at least for unresolved DMD bugs. I.e. all the 0.0..1.xx are being retagged as D1, and 2.00..2.xx are being retagged as D2.
>

That's certainly an improvement!

That just leaves 'future' and 'unspecified'

Can you please also remove all those 0.XXX/1.XXX/2.XXX versions from the list?

> Of course, many of the D1 bugs should be retagged as "D1 & D2", but they'll have to be gone through one by one to do that.

Yeah, I'll probably do that next time I make a pass through bugzilla. 

On 2/14/2014 9:05 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> That just leaves 'future' and 'unspecified'

Those have to be manually gone through.

> Can you please also remove all those 0.XXX/1.XXX/2.XXX versions from the list?

To do that, I also need to retag all the fixed ones, too. I'll get to it.

On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 18:39:55 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 2/14/14, 2:51 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 2/14/2014 12:16 AM, Don wrote:
>>> I agree with you in this case.
>>>
>>> D1 is in heavy commercial use at Sociomantic, and we are still submitting
>>> patches to DMD, and we frequently search bugzilla for open D1 bugs.
>>> But AFAIK
>>> *nobody* is using D1 Phobos.
>>> The only remaining role of D1 Phobos, AFAIK, is to allow the D1 test
>>> suite to run.
>>>
>>> I think that we should close all D1 Phobos bugs as WONTFIX.
>>> Realistically they
>>> are never going to be fixed, and I don't think anybody cares.
>>> (Or, if the bug also applied to D2, but is already fixed in D2, I
>>> think it would
>>> be perfectly valid to mark it as FIXED).
>>
>> In that case, I'm on board with that.
>>
>> (In case it isn't obvious, Don represents Sociomantic here.)
>
> As long as the closure process isn't a blind one.  Chances are reasonably high that MOST open D1 bugs also apply to D2.  The closure process must be an examination of the bug, not a mass update to close them.

We definitely need to check, but note that we are ONLY talking
about Phobos bugs. Not DMD bugs.

I don't think there are many D1 Phobos bugs which also apply to
D2 Phobos.
I have at times gone through all of the D1 compiler bugs, and
marked them as D1&D2 where possible. The ones that never applied
to D2 have "D1 only" in the title. I only found 38 of them.

I have never looked at the Phobos1 bugs, most of those should
just be closed.

"Walter Bright"  wrote in message news:ldn521$10av$1@digitalmars.com...

> > Can you please also remove all those 0.XXX/1.XXX/2.XXX versions from the list?
>
> To do that, I also need to retag all the fixed ones, too. I'll get to it.

Thanks!