About month ago I fixed some DWT2 bugs, but DWT maintainers just have no time to pull changes to the main repo. Changes are in my (denis_sh) commits descriptions:
https://bitbucket.org/denis_sh/patching-dwt2

Short changes description:
1. DWT2 now works on Linux32 with Phobos/D2 as bad as with Tango/D1 (not worse): lots of segfaults when printing and text editing and other bugs.
2. It looks working stable on Windows except Text widget sill doesn't support UTF-8 (yes, StyledText and it's friend now support it).
3. It now have compilable and right snippets.

On 2011-08-03 22:02, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
> About month ago I fixed some DWT2 bugs, but DWT maintainers just have no
> time to pull changes to the main repo. Changes are in my (denis_sh)
> commits descriptions:
> https://bitbucket.org/denis_sh/patching-dwt2

I'm so sorry. I haven't prioritized DWT and I've forgotten pull requests and patches in tickets. I will look into this. Maybe I can move the repository to bitbucket or github, this will make it easier creating and merging pull requests.

> Short changes description:
> 1. DWT2 now works on Linux32 with Phobos/D2 as bad as with Tango/D1 (not
> worse): lots of segfaults when printing and text editing and other bugs.
> 2. It looks working stable on Windows except Text widget sill doesn't
> support UTF-8 (yes, StyledText and it's friend now support it).
> 3. It now have compilable and right snippets.

That's great, at least someone is working on DWT.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:27:26 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

> I'm so sorry. I haven't prioritized DWT and I've forgotten pull requests and patches in tickets. I will look into this. Maybe I can move the repository to bitbucket or github, this will make it easier creating and merging pull requests.

I'm bias toward Git, I'm really liking submodules.

>> Short changes description:
>> 1. DWT2 now works on Linux32 with Phobos/D2 as bad as with Tango/D1
>> (not worse): lots of segfaults when printing and text editing and other
>> bugs. 2. It looks working stable on Windows except Text widget sill
>> doesn't support UTF-8 (yes, StyledText and it's friend now support it).
>> 3. It now have compilable and right snippets.
> 
> That's great, at least someone is working on DWT.

Yes, very good news.

On 2011-08-04 16:16, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:27:26 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>
>> I'm so sorry. I haven't prioritized DWT and I've forgotten pull requests
>> and patches in tickets. I will look into this. Maybe I can move the
>> repository to bitbucket or github, this will make it easier creating and
>> merging pull requests.
>
> I'm bias toward Git, I'm really liking submodules.

I like both git and github more than mercurial and bitbucket. Many seem to switch to github for their D development; DMD, Phobos Druntime; all of them are now on github. But on the other hand the DWT repository is already a mercurial repository and there are several forks on bitbucket.

>>> Short changes description:
>>> 1. DWT2 now works on Linux32 with Phobos/D2 as bad as with Tango/D1
>>> (not worse): lots of segfaults when printing and text editing and other
>>> bugs. 2. It looks working stable on Windows except Text widget sill
>>> doesn't support UTF-8 (yes, StyledText and it's friend now support it).
>>> 3. It now have compilable and right snippets.
>>
>> That's great, at least someone is working on DWT.
>
> Yes, very good news.


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

05.08.2011 9:38, Jacob Carlborg пишет:
> On 2011-08-04 16:16, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:27:26 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>
>>> I'm so sorry. I haven't prioritized DWT and I've forgotten pull requests
>>> and patches in tickets. I will look into this. Maybe I can move the
>>> repository to bitbucket or github, this will make it easier creating and
>>> merging pull requests.
>>
>> I'm bias toward Git, I'm really liking submodules.
>
> I like both git and github more than mercurial and bitbucket. Many seem
> to switch to github for their D development; DMD, Phobos Druntime; all
> of them are now on github. But on the other hand the DWT repository is
> already a mercurial repository and there are several forks on bitbucket.


Why? IMHO hg is better than git (newer program that fixed issues of older git and svn). Maybe github is convenient but it isn't because of git. It's a big shortcoming of github not to support hg.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Denis Shelomovskij < verylonglogin.reg@gmail.com> wrote:

> 05.08.2011 9:38, Jacob Carlborg пишет:
>
>  On 2011-08-04 16:16, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:27:26 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>
>>>  I'm so sorry. I haven't prioritized DWT and I've forgotten pull requests
>>>> and patches in tickets. I will look into this. Maybe I can move the repository to bitbucket or github, this will make it easier creating and merging pull requests.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm bias toward Git, I'm really liking submodules.
>>>
>>
>> I like both git and github more than mercurial and bitbucket. Many seem to switch to github for their D development; DMD, Phobos Druntime; all of them are now on github. But on the other hand the DWT repository is already a mercurial repository and there are several forks on bitbucket.
>>
>
>
> Why? IMHO hg is better than git (newer program that fixed issues of older git and svn). Maybe github is convenient but it isn't because of git. It's a big shortcoming of github not to support hg.
>

Actually, that is completely false. Git and HG were released within a month of eachother, have very similar feature sets, and didn't really influence eachother during development. Github is exclusively for Git, and Bitbucket is exclusively for Mercurial because you can't really mix them at all. It's a matter of taste, not a matter of "fixed issues." They're different programs built at the same time to accomplish the same goals.

> Actually, that is completely false. Git and HG were released within a
> month of eachother, have very similar feature sets, and didn't really
> influence eachother during development. Github is exclusively for Git,
> and Bitbucket is exclusively for Mercurial because you can't really mix
> them at all.
> It's a matter of taste, not a matter of "fixed issues." They're
> different programs built at the same time to accomplish the same goals.

I don't use SCM often. IMHO, SCM should just work. HG is simplier than Git (not only IMHO). So, it's a Git issue (for me) not to be as simple as HG.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:38:55 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:


> I like both git and github more than mercurial and bitbucket. Many seem to switch to github for their D development; DMD, Phobos Druntime; all of them are now on github. But on the other hand the DWT repository is already a mercurial repository and there are several forks on bitbucket.

You are right, there are a number of them:

https://bitbucket.org/kntroh/dwt2-with-d2/overview https://bitbucket.org/Extrawurst/wursts-dwt2/overview https://bitbucket.org/denis_sh/patching-dwt2/overview https://bitbucket.org/torhus/dwt2/overview

Go with bitbucket.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 15:00:37 +0300, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:

> I don't use SCM often. IMHO, SCM should just work. HG is simplier than
> Git (not only IMHO). So, it's a Git issue (for me) not to be as simple
> as HG.

I didn't use SCM much either, but then I learned git. I'm sure HG is just as easy as

git init

My experience with HG has been with DWT. It wasn't too hard, but I found it confusing. Later I decided to learn Git, and read about its usage from Progit. Now I find Git easier than SVN and HG, but that is only because I never took the time to learn HG.

On 05.08.2011 14:00, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
>> Actually, that is completely false. Git and HG were released within
>> a month of eachother, have very similar feature sets, and didn't
>> really influence eachother during development. Github is
>> exclusively for Git, and Bitbucket is exclusively for Mercurial
>> because you can't really mix them at all. It's a matter of taste,
>> not a matter of "fixed issues." They're different programs built at
>> the same time to accomplish the same goals.
>
> I don't use SCM often. IMHO, SCM should just work. HG is simplier
> than Git (not only IMHO). So, it's a Git issue (for me) not to be as
> simple as HG.

Another thing in Mercurial's favor is that it's not made and maintained
by people who couldn't care less about Windows.