On 2/11/15 5:48 AM, Dicebot wrote:
There seems to be a weird miscommunication here. I have asked your
opinion about this specific proposal - does it seem useful to you, would
you be willing to endorse it as official starting point for D
development etc.
Problem is I don't know. That's why I submitted that task
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11792 "Investigate...". I'm not
a git expert so I don't have answers to a bunch of questions.
I see from your opening arguments:
* "experience was mostly pleasing so far"
* "define a standard file layout cross-repo tools"
* "allow anyone curious to quickly get started with D development by
cloning a single repository"
* Pointer to
https://github.com/Dicebot/TestDlangAggregated/blob/master/README.md.
Document shows how starting with the unified repository is easy.
There are quite a few other questions to answer:
* What's going to happen with the commit history for our current projects?
* How about the pull requests history?
* What are the changes in workflow compared to the current situation?
* What tasks will be easier?
* What tasks will be more difficult?
And probably more questions I don't even know what they are. FWIW Martin
Nowak is a key person to convince of the advantages of the change.
My current perception is:
- I have a simple workflow that I'd find difficult to assume would be
radically improved. But it is possible there are conveniences I'm not
anticipating.
- The "getting started" advantage can be achieved on top of our current
layout with tactical tools such as documentation and tools/update.sh.
There's work there, of course.
- I noticed people who contribute to dmd, druntime, and phobos are
relatively specialized, i.e. Kenji seldom gets into phobos, H.S. Teoh
seldom gets into dmd etc. That does seem to be an argument in favor of
the current modularity. Furthermore they seem to have little friction
getting into these projects if they do want to.
Probably the main question is whether tooling with our layout is just fine.
Andrei
