On Wednesday, 9 September 2015 at 13:48:16 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 September 2015 at 12:02:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
I think it's a great idea. This has been suggested before. The
objections were that:
* If you do find a problem who should be responsible for
figuring out if it's a regression or an intended change?
It does raise the bar for language changes. Most changes should
be backwards compatible. For intended changes it forces us to
come up with a way to automatically detect and ideally fix it
(dfix?).
In an ideal world, I would imagine it like this: Tester finds a
package breaks. Package is on Github, so Tester can file an
issue there. Tester checks out the source from repo, runs dfix,
sends pull request referencing the issue.
* Not all packages are maintained enough to keep up with all
compiler changes
Then it would be quite interesting to know about this and
provide this information at code.dlang.org, like "broken for
2.068.0 and above".
There was a thread in announce in the last 12 months that
announced a site (was it ddocs.org?) that had documentation for
every package in the DUB registry, for each tag. I think it also
reported build problems. Don't know why it went offline.
