"Jacob Carlborg" <d...@me.com> wrote in message news:jec1j6$2rbu$1...@digitalmars.com... > > Ideally it should come before other new features. I mean, the more stuff > we put in there the more mess it will be. The point of the refactoring is > of course to make it easier to add new features and to understand the > code.
Yea, that makes sense. I guess I just wasn't sure how "deep" the refactoring you were envisioning was going to be. Something possibly releated I've been meaning to bring up: I've been thinking that DVM's commands and options should work more like, say, git or svn. By that I mean: Right now DVM has a set of commands, and a set of "global" DVM options. Problem is, some of the options only apply to some of the commands. This sugegsts a few changes: 1. "dvm --help" should only show globally-applicable options. (--verbose and --help are probably only ones right now.) 2. "dvm [command] --help" (and maybe "dvm --help [command]", too) should show a command-specific help screen. This isn't a *huge* need right now, but I think it'll only become more and more important as DVM progresses. I don't know if this is something that should be taken into account in the refactoring, or just left until after. Another thing that might need to be considered in the refactoring: On Linux, DVM doesn't currently work inside a shell script. It's just not recognized. I'm sure it probably has something to do with the "dvm" shell-function. Maybe it's because it's set to only be defined on interactive prompts? I don't really know for certain what the problem or the solution is, so depending on whatever the "right" solution is, this might be a "take into account in the refactoring" matter. > About the refactoring, what to you think about these: > > * Move to git I don't have a really strong opinion on that. While I kind of like Hg a little better, I normally use the Tortoise tools, and I like TortoiseGit much better than TortoiseHg. Also branching is built into Git rather than being a grafted-on extra, which is nice. (And of course, DVM goes hand-in-hand with DMD and DMD is Git). So I guess I would lean more towards Git, but either way works. > * Move to github It's ultimately up to you, but personally I can't stand Github. My vote would be to stick with Bitbucket. Granted, I haven't actually tried Bitbucket's Git support yet. But just yesterday I started the process of converting a couple of my projects from SVN/Dsource to Git/Bitbucket, so we'll see how it goes, and I'll let you know. > * Port to D2, still using Tango > I'm definitely in favor of switching to D2. In fact, I took the leap from D1/Tango straight to D2/Phobos on my own projects about a year or so ago, so I have some experience in that (and D2's only gotten better since), and I'd be happy to take the lead converting it to D2. I found that the vast majority of changes I needed to make were Tango->Phobos because, while there are some breaking changes from D1->D2, most of the changes are additive, and D1-style code works fine in D2 with only very little change. As far as Tango: I have no idea what the state of D2's Tango is, and personally I'd prefer Phobos. But if you have reason to believe D2's Tango is ready to use and you'd prefer that, then I'm perfectly fine with it. Actually, heck, if we're going to switch to D2, we may as well at least give D2's Tango a try along the way. If it works, it works, if it doesn't we can help out D2's Tango or just do Phobos (especially since 2.058 will have that new curl module).