On 9 July 2015 at 21:09, Martin Nowak via dmd-internals < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 07/09/2015 03:45 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > Recently got on-board with Semaphore-CI (better platform than > > Travis-CI IMO) > > Well adding D to the list of supported PLs always helps our visibility, > but then again there is way more important stuff to do than adding a > Travis-CI alternative. > It's also an endless job to add support for all CI systems. > http://www.slant.co/topics/186/compare/~circleci_vs_shippable_vs_travis > > > currently investigating using their docker-beta platform to push out > binary tarballs > > For release building? Are you cross-compiling? That would be interesting > for dmd as well. VirtualBox doesn't make things faster, but > cross-compiling comes with it's own drawbacks. > > Building cross-compilers is the end goal, yes. > > Download paths needs an overhaul. In retrospect I think it's > > not a good idea to update D frontend versions in GCC release > > branches. > > Not sure. In the long-run you want to move gdc into the gcc repo, so > gcc's version numbers should be dominant. > I think 4.9.2+2.068.0 perfectly makes sense. > How does gccgo handle this? > > Whatever is the current version of Go when GCC release freezes is the version that will be shipped with it. If I imposed this more strictly, we would instead have: 4.8.4+2.064.2 4.9.2+2.065.0 5.1.0+2.066.1 6.0.0+2.067-dev Yes, DMD releases take so long, they are pretty much in sync with GCC. (Although, still one release behind DMD by the time I manage to complete the merge ;-) Iain
_______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
