July 12, 2012 Re: D versionning | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Adam Wilson | Most ridiculous thing about D is that it breaks so much backward compatibility that people just give up using it. Decent versioning like this might help people stick to something. Wake up, guys, it is 10+ years and *still* it haven't reached some form of stable release. Like I sad, engineering failure. |
July 13, 2012 Re: D versionning | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Adam Wilson | On 2012-07-13 00:24, Adam Wilson wrote: > For example: > 2.0.60 is the current HEAD. Bug fixes Only. > 2.1.60 is the new feature branch. It is a GitHub fork of the current > DMD-HEAD owned by the same org as current DMD-HEAD. This way Walter can > work against both simultaneously. > > We could have rolled the Object const change in 2.1.60, found out we > didn't like them but instead of being FORCED to revert it to keep 2.060 > stable, we could have continued developing and improving the model or > working on the problem from a completely different angle, WITHOUT > affecting the release of 2.0.60. > > We could keep all the COFF work in the DMD 2.1 branch without affecting > DMD 2.0 branch and having nearly as many breakages as we currently do in > HEAD. Most recently, the ElfObj breakage. Roll that work into 2.1.60 and > if it breaks well, you KNEW you were on the development branch, what's > your problem? > > The stable/development branch model exists for a reason, it works, well. > We don't have to keep rediscovering the models that worked successfully > for other teams the hard way. If we proactively seek best practices, we > can proactively avoid a huge amount of pain. Yeah, I still don't understand why we don't do this. Is Walter against this? Anyone else? -- /Jacob Carlborg |
July 13, 2012 Re: D versionning | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jacob Carlborg | On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:43:40 -0700, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote: > On 2012-07-13 00:24, Adam Wilson wrote: > >> For example: >> 2.0.60 is the current HEAD. Bug fixes Only. >> 2.1.60 is the new feature branch. It is a GitHub fork of the current >> DMD-HEAD owned by the same org as current DMD-HEAD. This way Walter can >> work against both simultaneously. >> >> We could have rolled the Object const change in 2.1.60, found out we >> didn't like them but instead of being FORCED to revert it to keep 2.060 >> stable, we could have continued developing and improving the model or >> working on the problem from a completely different angle, WITHOUT >> affecting the release of 2.0.60. >> >> We could keep all the COFF work in the DMD 2.1 branch without affecting >> DMD 2.0 branch and having nearly as many breakages as we currently do in >> HEAD. Most recently, the ElfObj breakage. Roll that work into 2.1.60 and >> if it breaks well, you KNEW you were on the development branch, what's >> your problem? >> >> The stable/development branch model exists for a reason, it works, well. >> We don't have to keep rediscovering the models that worked successfully >> for other teams the hard way. If we proactively seek best practices, we >> can proactively avoid a huge amount of pain. > > Yeah, I still don't understand why we don't do this. Is Walter against this? Anyone else? I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much community disagreement with this... -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender Project Coordinator The Horizon Project http://www.thehorizonproject.org/ |
July 13, 2012 Re: D versionning | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Adam Wilson | On 2012-07-13 08:52, Adam Wilson wrote: > I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much community > disagreement with this... If he's not against it, I see know reason why this haven't been done already. -- /Jacob Carlborg |
July 13, 2012 Re: D versionning | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jacob Carlborg | On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 00:11:12 -0700, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote: > On 2012-07-13 08:52, Adam Wilson wrote: > >> I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much community >> disagreement with this... > > If he's not against it, I see know reason why this haven't been done already. Concurred. The next step is probably to send emails to Walter/Andrei detailing our case. -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender Project Coordinator The Horizon Project http://www.thehorizonproject.org/ |
July 13, 2012 Re: D versionning | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Adam Wilson | On Friday, 13 July 2012 at 06:52:25 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
> I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much community disagreement with this...
I would not be against having development and stable versions, but the price is not trivial: every pull request must be done in at least two branches, probably diverging significantly. And most benefits are already available: we have the git version and the last stable version (of course, the latter would be without the latest bug-fixes). That would mean slower progress in applying existing pull requests. (There are 100+ of those, aren't there?)
Also, nobody is preventing any person that considers this to be very important from creating a fork of stable branch and applying bug-fixes there. If this happens to be a very useful option, then it could be accepted as a policy.
So my point of view is that it might be too early to have such policy yet.
|
July 13, 2012 Re: D versionning | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Roman D. Boiko | On Friday, July 13, 2012 09:30:47 Roman D. Boiko wrote:
> So my point of view is that it might be too early to have such policy yet.
Which was my point. I think that we'll need to switch to a model like that eventually, but things are still in too much flux for it to make sense yet. Switching now would just slow everything down.
- Jonathan M Davis
|
July 13, 2012 Re: D versionning | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to deadalnix | "deadalnix" wrote in message news:jtn1ol$juu$1@digitalmars.com... On 12/07/2012 19:31, Iain Buclaw wrote: > On 12 July 2012 17:49, deadalnix<deadalnix@gmail.com> wrote: >> One thing PHP has been good at is evolving, and introducing change in the >> language (some can argument that the language is so fucked up that this is >> unavoidable, so I do it now and we can discuss interesting topic). >> >> I discussed that system with Rasmus Ledorf at afup 2012 and it something >> that D should definitively look into. >> >> The const vs OOP discussion have shown once again that D will have to >> introduce breaking changes in the language. This isn't easy matter because >> if we break people code, D isn't attractive. But as long as code isn't >> broken, D people can't worked on what's next and it slows down D progress. >> >> The system adopted in PHP works with a 3 number version. The first number is >> used for major languages changes (for instance 4> 5 imply passing object by >> reference when it was by copy before, 5> 6 switched the whole thing to >> unicode). >> >> The second number imply language changes, but either non breaking or very >> specific, rarely used stuff. For instance 5.2> 5.3 added GC, closures and >> namespace which does not break code. >> >> The last one is reserved for bug fixes. Several version are maintained at >> the same time (even if a large amount of code base is common, so bug fixes >> can be used for many version at the time). >> >> We should leverage the benefit of having switched to git to go in that way. >> We can start right now D2.1.xx with the opX dropped from object and see how >> it goes without requiring everybody to switch now. >> >> Such a system would also permit to drop all D1 stuff that are in current DMD >> because D1 vs D2 can be chosen at compile time on the same sources. >> >> git provide all we need to implement such a process, it is easy to do it >> soon (after 2.060 for instance) because it doesn't imply drastic changes for >> users. > > Might as well just say "Lets start D3 now - Let's drop all features > that have been deprecated since 0.103 - everyone make a hype and > party!" > > > No, user will need backward compatible support for any real life work. This is why besides some small D toy projects, I keep using C++(11) for any native coding at work when the oportunity surfaces. While I keep complaining on Go forums that I don't like that the language lacks enums and generics, the way Google oposes language featuritis and is keen on Go 1 stability, makes it easier to sell to management. -- Paulo |
July 13, 2012 Re: D versionning | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jonathan M Davis | On 13/07/2012 09:37, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, July 13, 2012 09:30:47 Roman D. Boiko wrote:
>> So my point of view is that it might be too early to have such
>> policy yet.
>
> Which was my point. I think that we'll need to switch to a model like that
> eventually, but things are still in too much flux for it to make sense yet.
> Switching now would just slow everything down.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
Just think about how long this -property thing is around, since when the delete or scope has been deprecated, and that all of this doesn't even give a warning or something when the compiler stumble on them.
|
July 13, 2012 Re: D versionning | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jonathan M Davis | On 2012-07-13 09:37, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > Which was my point. I think that we'll need to switch to a model like that > eventually, but things are still in too much flux for it to make sense yet. > Switching now would just slow everything down. We could have more of an experimental branch which would be used for testing bigger changes or changes that will impact a lot of code. -- /Jacob Carlborg |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation