On Saturday, 3 March 2018 at 02:12:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/2/2018 10:07 AM, carblue wrote:
>> I generally already used -dip1000 since DConf2017 and it served me well, until about 2 month ago, "by accident" code was committed to std.uni that broke my builds, see issue #17961. I invested a lot of time to fix this by PR 6041.
>> The current state is: I don't know any reason why it doesn't get (can be?) merged and now it languishes on page 2 of 3 of PRs and Walter started a new PR 6212 recently after my PR is ready for weeks. In total 4 of my -dip1000 related PRs are stuck and mostly for unknown or arguable reasons.
>
> For reference, I submitted:
>
>   https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6212
>
> which I remarked was puzzlingly different from your PR:
>
>   https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6041
>
> I would appreciate your advice on that as well.
>
> I was unaware of your PR. Sometimes, it's worth while to make some noise if you're feeling overlooked.

I just want to get a problem solved, as soon as possible, and std.uni breaking -dip1000 builds happens since at least 2017-11-02 (https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17961), seemingly sleeping for 2.5 month until I assigned myself in bugzilla willing to fix this issue.
If there is duplication/overlapping in PRs from several people, so what, it just happens - while not as effective as I would like D processes to be.

The point I wanted to make here is, that the longer a PR is languishing (farer from PR stack's top), the more likely dup-PRs will be and in this case even PRs marked "Blocking Other Work, Bug Fix" being overlooked.
In my situation of growing frustration about 4 stuck, espec. https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6204 and https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6041 (out of 8(9) submitted -dip1000 PRs; #6195 is known to possibly not being wise to merge unchanged), PR 6212 came along, You analyzed puzzling differences, I commented on that 8 days ago and since then nothing changed from my perspective:
Now, 4 months after opening 17961, it's still unfixed and possibly not fixed with the next release.

It's as simple as: I want my time invested being of any value, and if another PR solves a problem better than my solution and gets merged: Fine and I'll learn from that.

Andrei said at DConf2017 sys. panel talk: He intends to be "nice" when NOT saying: This xy-PR won't make it into dlang. To the contrary I explicitly want "negativ/refusal" feedback as well and I feel, retaining this is not "nice". We learn from our faults mostly.

> Both Andrei and I are way overloaded, and I generally defer
> to Andrei to watch the Phobos PRs.

I know and like Your unobtrusive way to point to overload. I consider delving into dmd code. Perhaps that might once help taking some load from Your shoulders.
Sorry for the missing linkages.

> For reference, here are your open PRs:
>   https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pulls?q=author%3Acarblue+is%3Aopen
>
> You've had 4 others that were pulled in the last month; you haven't been totally ignored:
>
>   https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pulls?q=author%3Acarblue+is%3Aclosed
>
> I do appreciate the work you're doing to get -dip1000 working with Phobos. It's important!

That's pleasant to hear from the language author, and frankly, I didn't cast doubts on that concerning You, once You take notice, but mostly others are dealing with the PR processing.

I can say, I very much appreciate the D language, Andrei's and Your work and pushing DIP1000 even against a wall of indifference. I believe the latter is changing (now) and the sooner - howsoever - #17961 get's fixed, people can use/try -dip1000 again.

-dip1000 compilabe phobos is pretty close - as You say - and finalizing helps taking more bricks out of the wall.
Okay, I'll give it another try to push that.

carblue, Carsten Blüggel