On Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 08:47:41 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Mar. 09, 2013: First call for comments for a new package format
http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/2/
May 24, 2013: Concrete DUB enhancement proposal (DEP)
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dub/wiki/DEP1
Jun. 12, 2013: Request for creating code.dlang.org
Sep. 26, 2013: Sub discussion about the choice of a JSON
alternative in the "dub: should we make it the de jure package
manager for D?" thread, started by you
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
Jun. 17, 2014: Opened a ticket for adding SDLang support (1.0.0
milestone)
Aug. 08, 2014: Initial implementation as a PR
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dub/pull/392
Sep. 22, 2014: Announcement of 0.9.22 and official status of DUB
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
Jun. 17, 2015: Announcement of the first beta version with
SDLang support
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
Jul. 02, 2015: Announcement of the second beta
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
Jul. 13, 2015: Announcement of the first release candidate
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
Sep. 14, 2015: Announcement of the final release candidate
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
Sep. 20, 2015: Announcement of the final release
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
Nov. 25, 2015: This thread
This really puts things in perspective.
What I got from this thread is that the only things worth
worrying about are:
1. code.dlang.org presents dub configuration snippets in a format
that doesn't match dub's default configuration format
2. dub could use a way to specify the default configuration
format.
IMHO what would also be great is make the default dub.sdl larger,
with comments explaining options, and commented-out examples of
other common options. This should make trips to dub's package
format's and SDL's reference necessary much less often.
