We plan to start building a new release on Sunday evening. To do so (pursuant to the embryonic process we're putting in place), at that time we'll create a new branch called "staging" for each of dmd, druntime, and phobos.

All contributors - over the weekend please ping reviewers on what you believe are pull requests with a high importance*urgency product. Once we branch into staging, pull requests will only be merged into master.


Thanks,

Andrei

On Friday, 21 December 2012 at 22:12:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> All contributors - over the weekend please ping reviewers on what you believe are pull requests with a high importance*urgency product.

DMD #1287 is still pending a response by Walter. I explained why I think it is urgent in the earlier thread (http://forum.dlang.org/post/srzxakcwamzzzvqctluz@forum.dlang.org), but I think the issue got lost in the wake of the UDA discussion.

David

On Friday, December 21, 2012 17:12:47 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> We plan to start building a new release on Sunday evening. To do so (pursuant to the embryonic process we're putting in place), at that time we'll create a new branch called "staging" for each of dmd, druntime, and phobos.
> 
> All contributors - over the weekend please ping reviewers on what you believe are pull requests with a high importance*urgency product. Once we branch into staging, pull requests will only be merged into master.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1287

really should be resolved prior to 2.061, or we're going to be introducing a compiler flag (-di) which we're probably then going to turn around and deprecate (and making deprecations warn by default instead of giving you an error will be  _huge_ step forward in our ability to manage deprecations without breaking people's code).

- Jonathan M Davis

On Friday, December 21, 2012 21:11:28 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, December 21, 2012 17:12:47 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > We plan to start building a new release on Sunday evening. To do so (pursuant to the embryonic process we're putting in place), at that time we'll create a new branch called "staging" for each of dmd, druntime, and phobos.
> > 
> > All contributors - over the weekend please ping reviewers on what you believe are pull requests with a high importance*urgency product. Once we branch into staging, pull requests will only be merged into master.
> 
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1287
> 
> really should be resolved prior to 2.061, or we're going to be introducing a compiler flag (-di) which we're probably then going to turn around and deprecate (and making deprecations warn by default instead of giving you an error will be  _huge_ step forward in our ability to manage deprecations without breaking people's code).

LOL. David was talking about the thing in his reply. I read it too quickly and thought that he was talking about the warning for the change in UDA syntax. In any case, I obviously agree with him. This issue needs to be resolved prior to the nex release.

- Jonathan M Davis

There are still 7 reported regressions unfinished according to

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?y_axis_field=bug_severity&query_format=report-table&product=D&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_severity=regression

and if 8774 is not fixed then DMD 2.061 will be as useless for me as 2.060. On the other hand I am a small user in a big pond so my needs should probably be qualified as not very important.

-- 
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 Saturday, December 22, 2012 08:42:05 Russel Winder wrote:
> There are still 7 reported regressions unfinished according to
> 
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?y_axis_field=bug_severity&query_fo rmat=report-table&product=D&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=RE OPENED&bug_severity=regression
> 
> and if 8774 is not fixed then DMD 2.061 will be as useless for me as 2.060. On the other hand I am a small user in a big pond so my needs should probably be qualified as not very important.

It sounds like no one even has a clue which project the bug is in. It's clearly a major problem, but unless someone can figure out what's wrong, it's obviously not going to be fixed.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Sat, 2012-12-22 at 01:10 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote: […]
> It sounds like no one even has a clue which project the bug is in. It's clearly a major problem, but unless someone can figure out what's wrong, it's obviously not going to be fixed.

Someone analysed this for a couple of days after the report was put in and came up with some hypotheses, I guess the record is in the mail list archive. There was another flurry of activity when I raised whether this was going to be fixed a few weeks later, and Walter said put in a bug report, but I already had. End of activity. Which is a bit strange for such a serious regression.

LDC works fine so I just don't use DMD. Simple workaround :-)

And as I say if my example is the only one in the world that exhibits the regression then the problem can be qualified out.

-- 
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

Am 22.12.2012 11:31, schrieb Russel Winder:
> On Sat, 2012-12-22 at 01:10 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> [
]
>> It sounds like no one even has a clue which project the bug is in. It's
>> clearly a major problem, but unless someone can figure out what's wrong, it's
>> obviously not going to be fixed.
>
> Someone analysed this for a couple of days after the report was put in
> and came up with some hypotheses, I guess the record is in the mail list
> archive. There was another flurry of activity when I raised whether this
> was going to be fixed a few weeks later, and Walter said put in a bug
> report, but I already had. End of activity. Which is a bit strange for
> such a serious regression.
>
> LDC works fine so I just don't use DMD. Simple workaround :-)

so first you need to update your bug-report - you stated that ldc is also not working  - thats a bug in you bug report :)

On Sat, 2012-12-22 at 11:36 +0100, dennis luehring wrote: […]
> so first you need to update your bug-report - you stated that ldc is also not working  - thats a bug in you bug report :)

It turns out to be more complicated than that. There isn't a bug in the bug report: LDC does work where DMD does not (hence my earlier email comment), but LDC doesn't work in some cases where DMD doesn't (hence the comment in the bug report remains correct). Interesting (or not) side observation: LDC generally creates faster executables than DMD, except in one or two cases that I have.

After New Year/Hogmanay, or earlier if possible, I will reinvestigate all the factors and update the issue appropriately.
-- 
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

Am 22.12.2012 13:15, schrieb Russel Winder:
> After New Year/Hogmanay, or earlier if possible, I will reinvestigate
> all the factors and update the issue appropriately.

sound for me like an bug in the dmd code generation - ldc frontend code should be nearly the same (or better: i don't think that the ldc guys fix silently frontend bugs), backend is totaly different, phobos should be also the same