On 10/23/2018 3:10 PM, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 
> My improvements to DIP1000 are completely dead in the water due to lack of interest. It's impossible to make Phobos DIP1000 compatible if nobody is willing to approve the improvements.
> 
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8504

Every time you say this I want to drive over and bonk you up side the head.  You keep making this statement and it's almost entirely false. The onus has been on you to produce specs and docs for this major change to the language semantics.  You inevitably point to the one issue in bugzilla, which is then pointed out to be sketchy and incomplete and the topic fades off into history, again.

If you want this to make forward progress, and I think it's fairly agreed that it needs to, you really need to accept that it's past time to do the documentation work.

Sigh,
Brad

On Tuesday, 23 October 2018 at 22:12:30 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> On 24/10/2018 11:10 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> My improvements to DIP1000 are completely dead in the water due to lack of interest. It's impossible to make Phobos DIP1000 compatible if nobody is willing to approve the improvements.
>> 
>> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8504
>
> Did the spec get the update that was requested over DIP1000?

No, _I did the work for it_ (https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/2453) but Walter has simply chosen to not respond, _at all_.

I can't merge those changes, 1) I don't have merge rights, 2) even if I did it, requires a review, and 3) the only person who can reasonably review it is Walter, who is not responding.

On Tuesday, 23 October 2018 at 22:22:18 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 10/23/2018 3:10 PM, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> 
>> My improvements to DIP1000 are completely dead in the water due to lack of interest. It's impossible to make Phobos DIP1000 compatible if nobody is willing to approve the improvements.
>> 
>> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8504
>
> Every time you say this I want to drive over and bonk you up side the head.

Please do.

> You keep making this statement and it's almost entirely false. The onus has been on you to produce specs and docs for this major change to the language semantics.  You inevitably point to the one issue in bugzilla, which is then pointed out to be sketchy and incomplete

and not the place for documentation or specification.

> and the topic fades off into history, again.

And he wonders why!

> If you want this to make forward progress, and I think it's fairly agreed that it needs to, you really need to accept that it's past time to do the documentation work.

He doesn't need to, I did it for him: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8504
He just needs to review it.

> Sigh,

True dat.

On 10/23/2018 3:22 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 10/23/2018 3:10 PM, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> My improvements to DIP1000 are completely dead in the water due to lack of interest. It's impossible to make Phobos DIP1000 compatible if nobody is willing to approve the improvements.
>>
>> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8504
> 
> Every time you say this I want to drive over and bonk you up side the head.  You keep making this statement and it's almost entirely false. The onus has been on you to produce specs and docs for this major change to the language semantics.  You inevitably point to the one issue in bugzilla, which is then pointed out to be sketchy and incomplete and the topic fades off into history, again.

No, it has not been pointed out so. There was one request for clarification, which I responded to. https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19097#c5

There's not been a single comment on the PR implementation itself.


> If you want this to make forward progress, and I think it's fairly agreed that it needs to, you really need to accept that it's past time to do the documentation work.

The documentation is there for all to read.

There's no consistent practice for the documentation must be pulled before the implementation or vice versa.

On 10/23/2018 4:56 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> He doesn't need to, I did it for him: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8504
> He just needs to review it.

https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/2453

While I thank and appreciate you for doing this work, and especially for taking the initiative instead of just complaining, I don't think that modifying a DIP that has already been approved is appropriate process. It should be a PR against the spec. Approved specs should be immutable.

In the meantime, an Enhancement Request in Bugzilla is perfectly adequate documentation for a minor amendment, which is what this is. It can be merged into the spec later. We do this all the time.

On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 01:31:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/23/2018 4:56 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
>> He doesn't need to, I did it for him: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8504
>> He just needs to review it.
>
> https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/2453
>
> While I thank and appreciate you for doing this work, and especially for taking the initiative instead of just complaining, I don't think that modifying a DIP that has already been approved is appropriate process.

Yes, but you did it anyway (and I know that not what you meant it to mean).

> It should be a PR against the spec. Approved specs should be immutable.

Be that as it may, documentation that does not reflect the status quo is worse than useless.

> In the meantime, an Enhancement Request in Bugzilla is perfectly adequate documentation for a minor amendment, which is what this is. It can be merged into the spec later. We do this all the time.

You know that opinion is not held by a number of people, most notably those reviewing your PRs. Because we do not understand the changes, because they are not documented we are not qualified to review. And if nobody is able to review your PRs because, you, through your actions, have reduced that set to zero, then you have only yourself to blame.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 18:31:33 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

> On 10/23/2018 4:56 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
>> He doesn't need to, I did it for him: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8504 He just needs to review it.
> 
> https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/2453
> 
> While I thank and appreciate you for doing this work, and especially for taking the initiative instead of just complaining, I don't think that modifying a DIP that has already been approved is appropriate process. It should be a PR against the spec. Approved specs should be immutable.
> 
> In the meantime, an Enhancement Request in Bugzilla is perfectly adequate documentation for a minor amendment, which is what this is. It can be merged into the spec later. We do this all the time.

The change seems small to you, so documenting it at the same time as the PR is out doesn't seem that important. But it still needs to be documented, and people are asking for the documentation to help with reviewing the PR. Why not just write the documentation? It's been three months.

On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 01:23:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/23/2018 3:22 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
>> On 10/23/2018 3:10 PM, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>
>>> My improvements to DIP1000 are completely dead in the water due to lack of interest. It's impossible to make Phobos DIP1000 compatible if nobody is willing to approve the improvements.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8504
>> 
>> Every time you say this I want to drive over and bonk you up side the head.  You keep making this statement and it's almost entirely false. The onus has been on you to produce specs and docs for this major change to the language semantics.  You inevitably point to the one issue in bugzilla, which is then pointed out to be sketchy and incomplete and the topic fades off into history, again.
>
> No, it has not been pointed out so. There was one request for clarification, which I responded to. https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19097#c5
>
> There's not been a single comment on the PR implementation itself.

Yes, can you guess why?

>> If you want this to make forward progress, and I think it's fairly agreed that it needs to, you really need to accept that it's past time to do the documentation work.
>
> The documentation is there for all to read.

FFS! Bugzilla in NOT documentation!

> There's no consistent practice for the documentation must be pulled before the implementation or vice versa.

You have _three_ PRs outstanding lacking documentation, which _I_
have documented _for you_, all you need do is verify that what I think you have have done in those PRs and we can move forward.

Until you do that nobody is going to review your PRs.

You're already caused at least two people to "reconsider their involvement" over the way you have handled dip1008, if you continue your arrogance/ignorance/stubbornness (and I'm genuinely not sure which) that number is only going to rise.

Shachar was right, D does have lethal structural problems just waiting to start crumbling.

I even agree with the change you want to make, but I don't understand it because there's no fucking documentation!

/rant

On 10/23/2018 7:38 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> Because we do not understand the changes,

Ask what it is you do not understand.

On 10/23/2018 10:20 PM, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
> The change seems small to you, so documenting it at the same time as the
> PR is out doesn't seem that important. But it still needs to be
> documented, and people are asking for the documentation to help with
> reviewing the PR. Why not just write the documentation? It's been three
> months.


It is documented here: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19097

If you don't understand it, feel free to ask.