On 12 September 2013 02:06, Brad Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 06:31:50 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote: > >> >> >> On 10.09.2013 20:03, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> >>> On 9/10/13 9:31 AM, Brad Anderson wrote: >>> >>>> On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 19:05:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: >>>> >>>>> Recent threads here have made it pretty clear that VisualD is a >>>>> critical piece of D infrastructure. (VisualD integrated D usage into >>>>> Microsoft Visual Studio.) >>>>> >>>>> Andrei, myself and Rainer (VisualD's champion) are all in agreement on >>>>> this. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Since it's official I think it'd be nice to add to the Windows >>>> Installer. I'll get started adding it if you or Andrei give me the go >>>> ahead. >>>> >>> >>> Yes please. Make it an opt-out choice. >>> >> >> Alternatively, I could add dmd to the Visual D installer. If the files >> are actually inside the package, I guess it is a bit easier this way >> because the Visual D installer does quite a bit of registration and >> patching. >> >> But both installers use NSIS, so it shouldn't be a big deal to merge them >> either way. >> >> >> >>> Once dub is a bit more mature I think it too should be added to the >>>> installer. >>>> >>> >>> That should probably be in all installers. >>> >>> >>> Andrei >>> >> > I was just going to have the DMD installer download Visual-D's installer > and run it. Seemed like the easiest approach. This would make it so > Visual-D's releases aren't tied to DMD's and people could upgrade Visual-D > independently if a new release comes out. Every release of DMD we'd just > update the Visual-D installer URL to match the current release. >
Or just point at 'latest' somehow? The most important thing is that the Visual-D installer doesn't need to ask the user where he chose to install DMD only a few seconds prior.
