The regression list is looking purty good now:

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED

The first 3 were there for 2.064, no change there.

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11543 I suspect is not even a regression.

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11896 should be fixed

The only question I have is given the confusion around 2.065, I'd like to just reboot with 2.066 and go to beta.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

I am strongly against skipping 2.065.  Just fix it and release it.


On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com>wrote:

> The regression list is looking purty good now:
>
> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_ format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_ status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED
>
> The first 3 were there for 2.064, no change there.
>
> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11543 I suspect is not even a regression.
>
> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11896 should be fixed
>
> The only question I have is given the confusion around 2.065, I'd like to
> just reboot with 2.066 and go to beta.
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta@puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>

On 1/12/2014 9:48 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> I am strongly against skipping 2.065.

Why?

>  Just fix it and release it.
>

It's a lot more work than to do a 2.066, which means it needs justification.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

The branches need to be cleaned up to make this release anyway. I don't see how calling it 2.066 would make doing this any easier.


On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com>wrote:

>
> On 1/12/2014 9:48 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>
>> I am strongly against skipping 2.065.
>>
>
> Why?
>
>
>   Just fix it and release it.
>>
>>
> It's a lot more work than to do a 2.066, which means it needs justification.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta@puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>

How is it more work?  Worst case: delete 2.065 branch, make new one.


On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com>wrote:

>
> On 1/12/2014 9:48 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>
>> I am strongly against skipping 2.065.
>>
>
> Why?
>
>
>   Just fix it and release it.
>>
>>
> It's a lot more work than to do a 2.066, which means it needs justification.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta@puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>

On 1/12/2014 10:12 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
> The branches need to be cleaned up to make this release anyway. I don't see how calling it 2.066 would make doing this any easier.

If the 2.065 branch is skipped, why would it need cleaning up?

_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 1/12/2014 10:30 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> How is it more work?  Worst case: delete 2.065 branch, make new one.
>

That works for me.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

If there were changes in the 2.065 branch that weren't in master (there doesn't appear to be but it needs to be double checked) they need to be merged back into master before the branch is deleted so they aren't lost.

I just had to make
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3080after noticing
(just by chance) that the latest version was missing from
master.

We almost got to the release stage with that missing from master because the release branch was never merged back into master.


On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com>wrote:

>
> On 1/12/2014 10:12 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
>
>> The branches need to be cleaned up to make this release anyway. I don't see how calling it 2.066 would make doing this any easier.
>>
>
> If the 2.065 branch is skipped, why would it need cleaning up?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta@puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com>wrote:

>
> On 1/12/2014 10:30 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>
>> How is it more work?  Worst case: delete 2.065 branch, make new one.
>>
>>
> That works for me.
>
>
Ok, cool.  I think this would work for release branches in general - if we've made a beta/release candidate and merging commits from master has become too difficult, simply abandon it and re-branch.   This way we never have to stop work on master, and never get stuck with complex merges and backporting.

On 1/13/14, 12:41 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> The regression list is looking purty good now:
>
> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED 
>
>
> The first 3 were there for 2.064, no change there.
>
> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11543 I suspect is not even a regression.
>
> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11896 should be fixed
>
> The only question I have is given the confusion around 2.065, I'd like to just reboot with 2.066 and go to beta.
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta@puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
Based on comments made thus far and the consensus reached, I will delete the 2.065 branch from all repos and recreate them. Before I do this however, Martin Nowak has several outstanding pull requests that require immediate attention:

    [1] https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/pull/39
    [2] https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/1847
    [3] https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/1846
    [4] https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/707
    [5] https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/pull/35
    [6] https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/pull/34

I just tried building dmd on OSX and encountered a couple of problems:

    1. Running "make -f posix.mak install" on dmd errors out because the file ../ini/osx/bin64/dmd.conf does not exist. The issue is bin64 does not exist, it is simply bin. Either we need to rename the directory or modify the make file to skip model identification for osx. Offending line is 649 of posix.mak which reads "cp ../ini/$(OS)/bin$(MODEL)/dmd.conf $(INSTALL_DIR)/bin/dmd.conf".

    2. Running "make -f posix.mak install" on druntime produces the error "make: ../dmd/src/dmd: No such file in directory". This occurs because the dmd binary is moved to "../install/bin" during step 1 above. Changing line 46 from "../install/bin/dmd" fixes the problem.

    3. Same error occurs when running make on phobos. See 2 above for fix. Offending line is 111.

    4. Attempts to build create_dmd_release produces the error "function core.sys.posix.sys.stat.chmod (const(char*), ushort) is not callable using argument types (immutable(char)*, uint)". In this case I am using Martin's fork which is a more current than what's in D-Programming-Language/installer but the same error exists in both places: line 1511 in the former on 1503 in the latter.

Kenji Hara just posted a pull request to resolve issue 11896: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3088. Please merge.

Determine whether issue 11543 is a regression or not. If not, re-designate.

Finally, I see no problems with Brad Anderson's proposal for a simplified release process and barring any objections from the community, I will be adapting this approach.

Andrew
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta