On 2/14/2014 12:16 AM, Don wrote:
> I agree with you in this case.
>
> D1 is in heavy commercial use at Sociomantic, and we are still submitting
> patches to DMD, and we frequently search bugzilla for open D1 bugs. But AFAIK
> *nobody* is using D1 Phobos.
> The only remaining role of D1 Phobos, AFAIK, is to allow the D1 test suite to run.
>
> I think that we should close all D1 Phobos bugs as WONTFIX. Realistically they
> are never going to be fixed, and I don't think anybody cares.
> (Or, if the bug also applied to D2, but is already fixed in D2, I think it would
> be perfectly valid to mark it as FIXED).

In that case, I'm on board with that.

(In case it isn't obvious, Don represents Sociomantic here.)

"Walter Bright"  wrote in message news:ldksbk$1pcn$1@digitalmars.com...

> On 2/14/2014 2:22 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> > And until that is complete, there is no reliable way to filter out D1 bugs. I've
> > been marking them with "(D1 only)", so I know at least those ones are actually
> > D1 bugs.
>
> Do a search for "D2" and "D1 & D2".

That excludes the bugs marked any of "2.000", "2.002", "2.003", "2.004", "2.005", "2.006", "2.007", "2.008", "2.009", "2.010", "2.011", "2.012", "2.013", "2.014", "2.015", "2.016", "2.017", "2.018", "2.029", "2.020", "2.021", "2.022", "2.023", "2.024", "2.025", "2.026", "2.027", "2.028", "2.029", "2.030", "unspecified", "2.031", "2.032", "2.033", "2.034", "2.035", "2.036", "2.037", "2.038", "2.039", "2.040" or "2.041".

Any even better, it falsely exludes the bugs marked as "D1*" that are from before D2 existed and not necessarily exclusive to D1.

> > Is sociomantic _actually_ using D1 phobos and caring if those bugs get fixed?
>
> To reiterate, the D1 bugzilla issues stay as long as Sociomantic is using D1.

Oh look, Don says I was right and they're not using phobos1.

On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 02:28:36 UTC, Joseph Cassman wrote:
> I never thought to do that as I have just gone by the "Bug Tracker" graphic on the website up until now. Interesting idea. Here is a chart comparing how the number of open bugs changes when those two filters are applied to the "Bug Tracker" queries.
>                          Before   After
> Regression               9        9
> Blocker                  17       17
> Critical                 69       63
> Major                    221      206
> Normal, minor, trivial   1923     1420
> Enhancement              1153     866
> All Open                 3392     2586
>
> That large of a difference surprised me. Seems like it would help with the impression of quality to someone first coming to the site by displaying the data filtered for D2 instead. It also seems more accurate since the D1 only stuff is not really being worked on and that page presents sort of a TODO list.
>
> Joseph

I approve of filtering the graphic this way. If you define "D" as meaning "current D" or "D2" and "D1" as "old D," even though D1 has current use, then this information would be clearer. The numbers for the current versions are more relevant to most people.

On 2/14/14, 12:16 AM, Don wrote:
> D1 is in heavy commercial use at Sociomantic, and we are still
> submitting patches to DMD, and we frequently search bugzilla for open D1
> bugs. But AFAIK *nobody* is using D1 Phobos.
> The only remaining role of D1 Phobos, AFAIK, is to allow the D1 test
> suite to run.
>
> I think that we should close all D1 Phobos bugs as WONTFIX.
> Realistically they are never going to be fixed, and I don't think
> anybody cares.
> (Or, if the bug also applied to D2, but is already fixed in D2, I think
> it would be perfectly valid to mark it as FIXED).

Sounds reasonable. BTW is there a plan in place to migrate to D2 for Sociomantic?

Andrei

On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 14:03:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Sounds reasonable. BTW is there a plan in place to migrate to D2 for Sociomantic?
>
> Andrei

Yes, but it is not a priority goal and unlikely to happen soon.

On 2/14/14, 6:51 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 14:03:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Sounds reasonable. BTW is there a plan in place to migrate to D2 for
>> Sociomantic?
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Yes, but it is not a priority goal and unlikely to happen soon.

Is there anything that can be done on our side to bring this to the front burner?

Andrei

On 2/13/14, 6:28 PM, Joseph Cassman wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 February 2014 at 20:00:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 2/13/2014 10:34 AM, francesco cattoglio wrote:
>>> Also, the current open issues list is HUGE, cutting it down by
>>> discarding outdated stuff would be nice. Or at least, would
>>> *look* nice. Honestly, the first time I took a look at D I was
>>> like "wait, is this a programming language or a testbed for some
>>> strange compiler?" :P
>>
>> Restrict your search for open bugs to "D2" and "D1 & D2" and you'll be
>> fine.
>
> I never thought to do that as I have just gone by the "Bug Tracker"
> graphic on the website up until now. Interesting idea. Here is a chart
> comparing how the number of open bugs changes when those two filters are
> applied to the "Bug Tracker" queries.
>                           Before   After
> Regression               9        9
> Blocker                  17       17
> Critical                 69       63
> Major                    221      206
> Normal, minor, trivial   1923     1420
> Enhancement              1153     866
> All Open                 3392     2586
>
> That large of a difference surprised me. Seems like it would help with
> the impression of quality to someone first coming to the site by
> displaying the data filtered for D2 instead. It also seems more accurate
> since the D1 only stuff is not really being worked on and that page
> presents sort of a TODO list.

So did you filter for "D2" and "D1 & D2"? That may be missing stuff, as Daniel mentioned.

I think it should be fine to mark D1 enhancement requests as WONTFIX, what does Sociomantic think?


Andrei

On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 15:15:12 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Is there anything that can be done on our side to bring this to the front burner?
>
> Andrei

No, not right now - we need to take care of some more important issues before being able to spend time/effort on porting. Growing pains. There are some ideas about possible compiler tweaks that can help but we are not going to ask anything without some detailed case study - have actually been discussing this on one of team meetings recently.

On 2/14/14, 7:17 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> So did you filter for "D2" and "D1 & D2"? That may be missing stuff, as
> Daniel mentioned.
>
> I think it should be fine to mark D1 enhancement requests as WONTFIX,
> what does Sociomantic think?
>
>
> Andrei

And those enhancement requests also likely apply to D2 as well.

On 2/14/14, 2:51 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 2/14/2014 12:16 AM, Don wrote:
>> I agree with you in this case.
>>
>> D1 is in heavy commercial use at Sociomantic, and we are still submitting
>> patches to DMD, and we frequently search bugzilla for open D1 bugs.
>> But AFAIK
>> *nobody* is using D1 Phobos.
>> The only remaining role of D1 Phobos, AFAIK, is to allow the D1 test
>> suite to run.
>>
>> I think that we should close all D1 Phobos bugs as WONTFIX.
>> Realistically they
>> are never going to be fixed, and I don't think anybody cares.
>> (Or, if the bug also applied to D2, but is already fixed in D2, I
>> think it would
>> be perfectly valid to mark it as FIXED).
>
> In that case, I'm on board with that.
>
> (In case it isn't obvious, Don represents Sociomantic here.)

As long as the closure process isn't a blind one.  Chances are reasonably high that MOST open D1 bugs also apply to D2.  The closure process must be an examination of the bug, not a mass update to close them.