I would really like https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3061to go in this release.
It's not a regression, but it's a nasty wrong-code bug and blocks ddmd on linux64. Does it seem reasonable to anyone? On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Andrew Edwards <[email protected]>wrote: > The branch will be renamed tonight in preparation for building beta 2. I > will make this change start building beta 2 at 10:00PM EST (UTC -5) so > please ensure the auto tester is not using the release branch in order > prevent any complications when it is renamed. Also just to verify that I am > not causing any additional issues, the tags (aka version numbers) for the > release will be as follows: > > 2.65.0-b2 > > Obviously, this is another chance but mandatory to resolve issues with > upgrading from installer packages on FreeBSD and Debian OSes. > > Following are the changes I've cherry-picked into the release branch since > beta 1. > > DMD > [REG2.061] Issue 11980 - startaddress pragma broken (pull request > #3142) > Issue 11974 - ICE(cast.c) Segfault with invalid assignment (pull > request #3141) > [REG2.065a] Issue 11966 - inout(const(char))[] doesn't convert to > inout(char)[] (pull request #3138) > fix Issue 11956 - dmd doesn't lookup /etc/dmd.conf (pull request #3128) > Issue 11968 - ICE(expression.c) Crash when deleting __FILE__ (pull > request #3139) > Issue 11944 - ICE(expression.c) Assertion `f' failed. (pull request > #3125) > fix Issue 11922 - [REG2.065a] ICE on nonexistent identifier in > templated auto method (pull request #3094) > [REG2.065a] Issue 11924 - inout Variadic Template Parameters (pull > request #3097) > [REG2.065a] Issue 11896 - isVirtualMethod related GitHub HEAD > regression (pull request #3104) > [REG2.065a] Issue 11930 - Alias this not considered in is(T unused: > U) matching (pull request #3105) > [REG2.065a] Issue 11931 - Linkers "Symbol Undefined" again with dmd > HEAD when -g specified (pull request #3107) > [REG2.065a] Issue 11941 - Errors when appending to aggregate member > array in CTFE (pull request #3112) > [REG2.065a] Issue 11967 - ICE(parse.c) Parser crash (pull request > #3137) > [REG2.064] Issue 11965 - Segfault on garbage (pull request #3136) > [REG2.065a] Issue 11963 - ICE(parse.c) Parser crash (pull request > #3135) > > Druntime > None > > Phobos > Remove duplicate ArchiveMember.madeVersion() property. > > Installer > Build the installer GUI for D2 on OS X (pull request #44) > add "dustmite" binary on deb/rpm packages (pull request #43) > don't zip .git* and .DS_Store files (pull request #42) > fix expanding zip files created on Windows (pull request #41) > cleanup leftover from merge conflict (pull request #40) > > dlang.org > fix chmgen after renaming phobos.html => index.htm (pull request #480) > Revert changelog.dd encoding to UTF-8 (pull request #478) > Changelog: add notes about std.uni.byGrapheme and std.range.only (pull > request #477) > 2.065 changelog (pull request #476) > > tools > None > > If important you are expected to be included are not on the list, please > identify them so I can adjust accordingly. > > > > On 1/23/14, 11:03 PM, Brad Roberts wrote: > > On 1/23/14 2:17 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Andrew Edwards <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>> > wrote: > > On 1/23/14, 2:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote: > > I agree, I don't know what's wrong with what we had before: > > 1. All pull requests get merged to master > 2. Create 2.065 branch > 3. Cherry-pick from master to 2.065 as required > 4. Tag 2.065.whatever as releases get done on that branch > > Easy, simple. All these other procedures seem like massive > over-engineering to me. > > Good to go... I for one did not see either of you weigh in on the > proposal when Brad Roberts > > > Brad Anderson :P > > made it > ( > http://forum.dlang.org/post/__CAFU1Uzpm4DBADOxMjcJ_Guj1=__T8BQ4nPb5OEbADNbUQDD2ijuQ@__mail.gmail.com > > <http://forum.dlang.org/post/CAFU1Uzpm4DBADOxMjcJ_Guj1=t8bq4npb5oebadnbuqdd2i...@mail.gmail.com><http://forum.dlang.org/post/CAFU1Uzpm4DBADOxMjcJ_Guj1=t8bq4npb5oebadnbuqdd2i...@mail.gmail.com> > ). > I decided to use it because, compared to the alternative of trying to > convince volunteers to do > something they do not want to, it would be much simpler for me to > follow this scheme. > > > I wish I would have thought to email Brad directly (sorry, Brad) to make > sure he saw it and could > weigh in. Especially since apart from you he's really the only other > person that needs to change > anything to adopt this workflow. > > > To me there is no difference between the two processes, except the > "we've always done it this > way syndrome". Fixes are generated from release tags into a hotfix > branch. Once the fix is > released, we merge it back into master, remove the branch and move on. > I am preparing both > releases and hotpicks so I don't see any extra work being generated > for the devs. > > The only chance I see on your parts is the need to change the tester > scripts to point search for > and test "hotfix" and "release" branches if they exist. I'm not the > person doing that so I might > have an overly simplified view of your processes but I really don't > see the big deal. > > > If Brad Roberts decides it's too hard for whatever reason we should be > able to just change the > workflow over to use a versioned branch name and dropping the step where > the branch is deleted. Then > the hotfix process would just checkout the versioned branch (and skip the > delete as well). I like > the tag and delete method better but we can't sacrifice the autotester for > that. > > > The problem is that as specified, _every_ fix requires also setting up > builds in the auto-tester (regardless of who does it). That should be once > per maintained version. Deleting and recreating is a waste of everyone's > time. > > It's not just me that's affected. Anyone who wants to test releases as > they're being built has to carefully track what branch to use when, which > is tedious and a waste of time. > > Also, what if we decide to patch two past releases, does that happen > serially, using the release branch name for each of the versions one at a > time? Also stupid and a waste of time. > > Should I continue or is it obvious now? > > _______________________________________________ > dmd-beta mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmd-beta mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta >
_______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
