On 1/5/2013 1:30 AM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
> I noticed that D 2.062 has no new features.  What would it take to remove the
> link to New/Changed Features on that version since there are none?

There will be.

Jonathan M Davis, el  4 de January a las 08:12 me escribiste:
> On Friday, January 04, 2013 14:30:01 Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > I think the best way to do it is to put it in the repository where the changes were made (this implies having separate release notes for dmd, phobos and druntime, I know).
> > 
> > This way is trivial to see if some important change deserves a note in the release notes and if it does, for the reviewers to reject the pull request until it has proper release notes.
> > 
> > Having them elsewhere will make the review process very difficult and lots of changes will still be missing.
> > 
> > As part of the release process, we can merge these notes together and add them to the website. Even when doing it manually shouldn't be that time consuming (is only copy&paste), this could also be automated.
> 
> This is what we've been doing for ages. With the bug fixes being in there, it's been a big problem, because it creates merge conflicts up the wazoo. So, we've generally avoided updating the changelog as part of pull requests with code in them. However, now that the bugzilla portion is being automated, it may be feasible to update changelog.dd in the pull requests with code changes.

I'm talking about the release notes, only few changes should need an entry on that file.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambition makes you look pretty ugly

On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 02:20 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: […]
> Sounds like you must be very good at Linux. I would never have been able to do it without this guide:
> 
> http://library.linode.com/email/postfix/dovecot-mysql-debian-6-squeeze
> 
> I found that to be more contrived, obscure, and needlessly
> over-complicated than anything else I've ever had to set up on (or off) a computer.

Take MySQL out of the mix and it all becomes far, far, far easier.

> The result is worth it, of course, but geez, what a bunch of pointless hoops. No reason I shouldn't have been able to just do something like:
>
> $ sudo apt-get install sane-email-server
> 
> Then maybe answer a few simple questions, and be done with it.

Dovecot and Postfix now work out of the box, but still benefit from a bit of extra configuration, which is where emacs|nano|vim is all you need apart from some careful editing of the configuration files probably with an open reference manual to check exact options and syntax.  Debian actually uses Exim4 now as the default SMTP system. It also works out of the box.

[…]
> Yea. Google's "Don't be evil" is a complete load of self-rationalizing bullshit. I mean, christ, their whole business is based on mining/selling personal information, and then they twist and contort the web technologies themselves into whatever they see fit (people bitch when *Microsoft* tries to do it, but when Big Brother does it it's apparently ok), and then they have the audacity to pretend their mantra is "Don't be evil." I hate Microsoft as much as anyone, but I'd sell my soul to MS if it got rid of companies like Google and Apple.

Google is a complex beast in that it it clearly evil, money grubbing, etc. as it has to be as a company with shareholders, but it also does do a lot of community support to try and give back some. Much more so that Microsoft and Apple, both of which are just evil without any of the giving back.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 13:18:07 +0000
Russel Winder <russel@winder.org.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 02:20 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > Yea. Google's "Don't be evil" is a complete load of self-rationalizing bullshit. I mean, christ, their whole business is based on mining/selling personal information, and then they twist and contort the web technologies themselves into whatever they see fit (people bitch when *Microsoft* tries to do it, but when Big Brother does it it's apparently ok), and then they have the audacity to pretend their mantra is "Don't be evil." I hate Microsoft as much as anyone, but I'd sell my soul to MS if it got rid of companies like Google and Apple.
> 
> Google is a complex beast in that it it clearly evil, money grubbing, etc. as it has to be as a company with shareholders,

Yea, I was very disappointed years ago when they announced an IPO. Prior to that, they were more or less just a fairly respectable search engine. Very unsurprisingly, that didn't last long after going public.

> but it also does
> do a lot of community support to try and give back some. Much more so
> that Microsoft and Apple, both of which are just evil without any of
> the giving back.
> 

That is a fair point. OTOH, Google (by their very nature) is dead-set on things like making sure the web gets treated as an application platform and getting people to store their personal data on Google's private "cloud" (a moronic and unnecessary renaming of the works "hosted" and "internet", but that's a separate rant).

I know some people may not have a problem with such things as web-as-an-OS, but I see it as doing very severe damage to the entire world of computing as a whole. Which is not offset by anything they could even possibly give back. They may see it as relieving the world from the tyranny of Windows, but really it's just exchanging one facist dictator for a nuttier, but more charismatic, one.

Also I think another part of what makes Google (and Apple) so dangerous
is that unlike MS, most people are still hailing them as wonderful
and benevolent companies.

> D 2.062 does not even exist yet, the current development version of
> changelog.dd just made it to http://dlang.org/changelog.html by accident.
>
> Davi

OK. Was not obvious for me  when I looked at the change log. And BTW, the change log page still shows it.  Is this intentional?  If it is, could we not identify the build as "Future/unreleased version" or something similar?

This is probably what a lot of people are worried about: the fact that you need t really get involved in the project to be able to use it. And the lack of consistency does not provide a good press for the project.

I will try to help by updating some of the Bugzilla titles as I continue learning.

/Pierre

On 13-01-05 5:39 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/5/2013 1:30 AM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
>> I noticed that D 2.062 has no new features.  What would it take to
>> remove the
>> link to New/Changed Features on that version since there are none?
>
> There will be.
>
Do you have a plan of what they will be and a target date for the next release?

On 1/5/2013 10:06 AM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
> On 13-01-05 5:39 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 1/5/2013 1:30 AM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
>>> I noticed that D 2.062 has no new features.  What would it take to
>>> remove the
>>> link to New/Changed Features on that version since there are none?
>>
>> There will be.
>>
> Do you have a plan of what they will be and a target date for the next release?

We've never had a release that didn't have some new/changed features.

On 13-01-05 4:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/5/2013 10:06 AM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
>> On 13-01-05 5:39 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 1/5/2013 1:30 AM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
>>>> I noticed that D 2.062 has no new features.  What would it take to
>>>> remove the
>>>> link to New/Changed Features on that version since there are none?
>>>
>>> There will be.
>>>
>> Do you have a plan of what they will be and a target date for the next
>> release?
>
> We've never had a release that didn't have some new/changed features.

I know.

What I'm trying to see is what is the development *plan* for D2? Something that would identify the future features to be implemented and the planned targets/milestones for them.

I would assume that I am not alone in watching the D language evolution, would like to get people to start using it at my work place, and would like to know what the plan is be so we can better convince other people to invest time into it.

/Pierre

On 2013-01-06 05:19, Pierre Rouleau wrote:

> I know.
>
> What I'm trying to see is what is the development *plan* for D2?
> Something that would identify the future features to be implemented and
> the planned targets/milestones for them.
>
> I would assume that I am not alone in watching the D language evolution,
> would like to get people to start using it at my work place, and would
> like to know what the plan is be so we can better convince other people
> to invest time into it.

I've requested that for years, still nothing. Well that only thing I've seen is that the change log used to say "Under Construction: Shared libraries for Linux". Still does for D1.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 12:08 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote: […]
> I've requested that for years, still nothing. Well that only thing I've seen is that the change log used to say "Under Construction: Shared libraries for Linux". Still does for D1.

I know that the Go folk are of the view that shared libraries are an abomination and all should be expunged from the universe; all Go executables are statically linked.

Of course Linux, OS X, Solaris and AIX depend on shared libraries, but maybe Google think they can change the world?

If D is to compete with C, C++ and JVM-based languages then it has to have a position on shared libraries other than "we think it might be a good idea, but no-one has bothered to do anything about it to date". Either is is a good idea or it isn't. If it is a good idea then shared libraries should be in 2.062. If it isn't then a clear statement of "won't fix" and "D is a static compile only language, like Go" is needed.

Of course then the issue is "How to link to shared libraries?". Go has some difficulties here but the put a shim in place to deal with it.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder