Why not just copy what Linus does with the Linux kernel. Different people
in charge of different parts of the compiler. Pull requests should go to
the correct person, who then makes a pull request that goes to the main

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Leandro Lucarella <l...@llucax.com.ar>wrote:

> Andrei Alexandrescu, el 18 de October a las 11:45 me escribiste:
> > >- We do not have any defined release timeline. When is it time to
> > >start prepping for a release? It's up to Walter's arbitrary decision
> > >for when this happens, he doesn't even talk to the community or
> > >contributors on whether it's a good time for a beta phase (maybe
> > >there's a huge or disruptive new pull request that's planning to be
> > >merged and a beta should be delayed).
> >
> > I understand how that can be a bother. Walter figures the time is
> > ripe for a new release when we have enough compelling features and
> > fixes. I'll try to make the appropriate announcements in the future
> > prior to deciding on starting a beta.
> Just a brief comment about this: sometimes regularity could be better
> than tons of new features/bugfixes.
> > Walter scrambled to implement UDAs in a rush and breaking protocol
> > in order to win a corporate D user, Remedy Games. It was a major,
> > exceptional event. Would you have preferred the protocol to have
> > been followed at the cost of Remedy?
> That's not the entire story. Back then Walter still push changes to the
> repo himself. That was the main problem, and fortunately it finally
> changed. He did that all the time in the past, UDAs wasn't an exception,
> but it had a high impact back then because Walter was the only one not
> going through the review process, it so felt doubly unfair.
> > So when I have a few free minutes, I try to take a look at the
> > extant pull requests - really, any would do. I try to pull in those
> > that are meaningful and uncontroversial. I agree I could probably
> > spend more time on carefully analyzing interactions between pulls,
> > but that's time I can't afford.
> I think the alternative is merging one, wait for the autotester, merge
> another and wait for the autotester, and so on. I would be more annoying
> having to wait for every test, but there is really no rush to make
> a bunch in one go. I think it would be extremely helpful to have some
> help from the autotester to auto-merge too. Like marking a pull request
> as approved so the auto-tester merges it automatically when it passes the
> test. Dreaming?
> --
> Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> <o_O> parakenotengobarraespaciadora
> <o_O> aver
> <o_O> estoyarreglandolabarraporkeserompiounapatita

Reply via email to