On 16 July 2012 18:56, Adam Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:26:31 -0700, Iain Buclaw <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Monday, 16 July 2012 at 16:39:45 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: >>> >>> Am Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:21:39 +0100 >>> schrieb Iain Buclaw <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> On 16 July 2012 14:00, Marco Leise <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > Am Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:51:16 -0700 >>>> > schrieb "Adam Wilson" <[email protected]>: >>>> > >>>> > As it shows, the beta phase doesn't always catch all > regressions in >>>> > people's code, so I encourage you to do this > project and eventually it >>>> > will be used by GDC and other > major from-source projects. By the way: >>>> > Should this also > later become the base for the official zip file >>>> > download? >>>> > > IIRC Walter wanted to keep track of the DMD downloads from > the main >>>> > > web >>>> > site (no redistribution) and hotfixed versions > of D could become >>>> > increasingly popular. >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Marco >>>> > >>>> And what benefits would GDC get from opting to use this rather than >>>> the normal releases? >>> >>> >>> What he said, [regression] fixes that didn't make it into the initial >>> release. I don't know about GDC's 'patch level', but for 2.059 I applied >>> patches for the following issues after release, to have it feel as solid as >>> good old 2.058: >>> - issue-7907 >>> - issue-7911 >>> - issue-7922 >>> - outOfMemoryError-undeprecation >>> - std-path-sep-deprecation >>> >>> In case crypto algorithms become part of Phobos, some patches may improve >>> security as well. Didn't you say you work only with the GitHub release tags >>> for stability? >> >> >> So if I were to represent a theoretical merge sequence in ascii: >> >> ... former releases ... >> DMD Development GDC Development >> >---- DMD 2.060 release ----> >> | | >> DMD Development DMD 2.060.1 release >> v v >> | | >> | DMD 2.060.2 release >> | v >> | | >> | DMD 2.060.3 release >> | v >> | | >> DMD 2.061 beta DMD 2.060.4 release >> v v >> | | >> DMD 2.061 RC DMD 2.060.5 release >> v v >> | | >> >-- DMD 2.061 release ------> >> >> >> Would this be a correct way of utilising this new process? >> > > I'd say mostly correct. The last step is the one where we might differ > though, as we may choose to wait on regression and other bug-fixes to any > new features in that release. But we might not wait if the build consists of > no new features, just breaking changes to existing ones. It will be more of > a conversation with the community about how stable they feel the changes in > the latest release are. For example, of the new COFF support is still highly > unstable (lots of fix commits), we might wait until that settles down before > merging in the entirety of the development repos. >
And how does DMD backend support for COFF affect GDC? :-) -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
