On 9/21/2014 3:16 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 08:49:38AM +0000, via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sunday, 21 September 2014 at 00:07:36 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Saturday, 20 September 2014 at 12:39:23 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
What do you think are the worst parts of D?
The regressions!
https://issues.dlang.org/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=regression&list_id=106988&resolution=---
I filed over half of those...
I guess you found them using your own code base? Maybe it would make
sense to add one or more larger projects to the autotester, in
addition to the unit tests. They don't necessarily need to be
blocking, just a notice "hey, your PR broke this and that project"
would surely be helpful to detect the breakages early on.
This has been suggested before. The problem is resources. If you're
willing to donate equipment for running these tests, it would be greatly
appreciated, I believe.
No, that's not the problem. The problem is what to do when the "larger project"
fails.
Currently, it is the submitter's job to adjust the test suite, fix phobos code,
whatever is necessary to get the suite running again. Sometimes, in the more
convoluted Phobos code, this can be a real challenge.
Now replace that with somewhere in a large project, which our poor submitter
knows absolutely nothing about, it fails. You're asking him to go in, understand
this large project, determine if it's a problem with his submission or a problem
with the large project, and fix it.
At some level, then WE become the maintainers of that large project.
This is completely unworkable.
