Re: My LLVM talk @ FOSDEM'16

[Kai Nacke via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 20:08:17 UTC, deadalnix wrote:

On Saturday, 30 January 2016 at 12:25:38 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:
Live streaming is index here: 
https://fosdem.org/2016/schedule/streaming/


Room is K.3.201.

Regards,
Kai

On Thursday, 7 January 2016 at 23:38:07 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:

Hi everybody!

Like the last 2 years I am a speaker in the LLVM toolchain 
devroom @ FOSDEM'16.
My talk is not D related but more about LLVM internals. (For 
sure, it is related to my work on LDC!)


Read the announcement at 
https://fosdem.org/2016/schedule/event/llvm_to_new_os/.


FOSDEM is a two-day event organised by volunteers to promote 
the widespread use of open source software.


Taking place in the beautiful city of Brussels (Belgium), 
FOSDEM is widely recognised as "the best open source 
conference in Europe".


FOSDEM 2016 will take place at ULB Campus Solbosch on 
Saturday 30 and Sunday 31 January 2016. Read more about the 
event at https://fosdem.org/2016/.


Regards,
Kai


Is there any recording ?


It was recorded. I announce when the video is online.

Regards,
Kai

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

[Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:03:25 +0200, Rory McGuire via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

> The problem is the D logo etc at the top of his docs mixed with Adam's
> resentment. Your email validates what I was suggesting he should avoid.

My newsreader's history doesn't support your memory of events.

The problem you cited was "insulting our official docs" and (nonexistent) 
community splits resulting from the insults. Your predicted / recommended 
response to that problem was "a cease and desist letter from the D 
Foundation".

There's no evidence that you considered trademark issues at all until I 
brought them up. If I'd cited copyright infringement instead, I'm betting 
you would have jumped on that, even though the docs are Boost-licensed.

What I would actually expect, instead of a C letter, is a set of 
guidelines for using the D logo and other trademarked material. That's 
pretty standard for open source projects. And if those guidelines forbad 
using the D logo for a documentation mirror, that would be a problem.

An airtight set of guidelines probably requires a trademark lawyer, which 
probably costs more than the D Foundation has in its coffers. We might 
see a preliminary set of guidelines coming out in the next year or so.

I don't see how a criticism of the official documentation (even one you 
believe is insulting) fragments the community. Most people around here 
think D's documentation is a problem. Adam Ruppe provided both specific 
feedback and an implemented alternative, which is much more constructive 
than average. He's got a pull request for content changes that he's made, 
too, which is the opposite of fragmentation.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 20:14:42 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:

On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 20:01:11 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
What I would actually expect, instead of a C letter, is a 
set of guidelines for using the D logo and other trademarked 
material. That's pretty standard for open source projects. And 
if those guidelines forbad using the D logo for a 
documentation mirror, that would be a problem.


The last time this was discussed it came up that the creator of 
the logo has not transferred the rights, so you would have to 
ask the creator of the logo for usage that goes beyond the 
website.


Unless this has changed there is no way for "D Foundation" to 
register the design as a trademark. And the letter "D" itself 
cannot be used as a trademark, so if you want to trademark a 
"D" logo it has to be very specific.


Here is the relevant link:

http://media.sukimashita.com/d/

Please note:

«The following pictures are ideas for different styles as an
effort to create a common logo for the D programming language 
community.»


«COPYRIGHT © SUKIMASHITA 2006
ALL FREE TO USE. ONLY SELLING THESE IMAGES IS PROHIBITED.»

So clearly, Adam and anyone else can use these images, at least 
unmodified. The version he is using is a derived work so he 
probably should clear that with the original author.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 20:01:11 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
What I would actually expect, instead of a C letter, is a set 
of guidelines for using the D logo and other trademarked 
material. That's pretty standard for open source projects. And 
if those guidelines forbad using the D logo for a documentation 
mirror, that would be a problem.


The last time this was discussed it came up that the creator of 
the logo has not transferred the rights, so you would have to ask 
the creator of the logo for usage that goes beyond the website.


Unless this has changed there is no way for "D Foundation" to 
register the design as a trademark. And the letter "D" itself 
cannot be used as a trademark, so if you want to trademark a "D" 
logo it has to be very specific.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

[Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 20:01:11 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:

My newsreader's history doesn't support your memory of events.


I don't think this is worth arguing over...

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

[Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Chris Wright via
Digitalmars-d-announce  wrote:
>
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:14:08 +0200, Rory McGuire via
> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>
> > If you don't get a cease and desist letter from the D Foundation soon
> > I'd be surprised.
>
> A cease and desist for making Boost-licensed documentation available in
> another medium. Kind of violates the spirit of being an open source
> project, no?
>
> The only grounds potentially available for a C letter are based in
> trademarks. For the D Foundation to succeed with this sort of thing in
> general, they'd need to start an explicit trademark licensing system and
> assiduously go after people who use the trademark without a license. (Non-
> enforcement is grounds for losing trademark status.) That's probably not
> going to happen. Too much work and too much negative publicity.
>
> And you appear to be recommending this as a punitive measure for comments
> in another forum. Can you imagine the reaction? Every time anyone posted
> an article about D, the comments would be full of "hope you don't get
> sued".


The problem is the D logo etc at the top of his docs mixed with Adam's
resentment. Your email validates
what I was suggesting he should avoid.

>
>
> You're issuing a threat that you have no standing to fulfill, where those
> who do have standing have every incentive not to fulfill it and no
> particular reason to listen to you.
>
> > Your matter of fact insulting of our official docs
> > (which are leaps and bounds better than the new stuff you are making) is
> > destructive to our community.
>
> I've seen far nastier comments than Adam Ruppe's on this forum (it's a
> huge stretch to call his "nasty"), and nastier than yours, and
> unproductive to boot, and nobody objected to them. Seeing a person
> threatening someone for trying to help and providing specific feedback,
> while worse goes unnoted, is demoralizing and probably worse for the
> community.
>
> > Having a different kind of search and having a different layout that is
> > more succinct is "Super Awesome" and you are doing it, but you have
> > absolutely no reason to constantly insult the work on the main site.
> >
> > _Creating division in such a small community is not helpful_.
>
> It's not a division. It's a documentation mirror with a different layout.


Did you read my mail at all?

>
>
> > Having
> > competing designs can be very helpful, (e.g. your layout could be nice
> > for Google search results), official docs are nice because you don't
> > have to constantly jump around the site while working.
>
> There's pretty much no advantage to having three hundred declarations on
> the same page with no cross-references and only top-level declarations
> indexed.


>
>
> Cross-references plus all-in-one-page might be okay, but then you'd be
> comparing Adam Ruppe's work with a hypothetical evolution of dlang.org
> docs.
>
> > On Sat,
>
> Please, disable HTML mail for this list.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

[Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Adam D. Ruppe via
Digitalmars-d-announce  wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 11:14:08 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
>>
>> If you don't get a cease and desist letter from the D Foundation soon I'd
>> be surprised.
>
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/n5sf7o$mu1$2...@digitalmars.com
>
>
> Andrei isn't exactly enthusiastic (though later on, he softens a bit), but
> I'm convinced we need to change course anyway.
>
> Of course, if they did try more harsh measures, I'd fight it, and then we'd
> see a far more problematic division in the community.
>
>> but you have absolutely no reason to constantly insult
>> the work on the main site.
>
>
> I see a distinction between insults and technical criticism. A navigation
> bar that is difficult to navigate is a technical problem - and there's a
> technical solution. Changing the color of template constraints is like
> shoving toys under the bed when your mother is about to inspect your room.
> It might fool her for about two seconds, but she's going to see it anyway
> and will not be pleased.
>
> And more importantly, it doesn't actually clean up the dust, or organize the
> toys, or discover the dirty laundry that got mixed in to the floor.
>
>
> It is an easy "solution" that you can quickly do without a lot of work, but
> it isn't actually fixing anything. It is solving the unreadable mess problem
> by shoving half of it under the rug instead of actually making it readable.
>
> (And putting the text "Constraint:" before is silly too. Anyone who knows
> what that means also knows what if() means in this context, and anybody who
> doesn't isn't going to learn anything from it.)
>
>
> If dlang.org fixed these problems, I'll set my site to redirect to their
> site again like it used to do. But, as I've described before, I don't think
> it will change in that direction without a major, multi-faceted overhaul.
>
> I'm doing that overhaul now. And my content changes are available for
> upstream: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3895
>
> Minor content so far, but lots of cross referencing, fixing missing
> comments, organizing, etc.
>
> though some of it also relies on the generator changes, so it isn't
> something they can just merge and forget about...
>
>> _Creating division in such a small community is not helpful_.
>
>
> It might be such a small community because of the weakness in its
> documentation. I've interviewed a LOT of new and prospective D users over
> the last several months and every one of them, without exception, expressed
> difficulty to me in navigating the official site. Several of them just went
> elsewhere and didn't look back.

100% bro, I'm not referring to making a separate implementation or
anything like that I'm saying: "As a 'important user' in our community
your voice counts for something and be careful what you say".

Surely everyone can agree on that?

Re: Vision for the first semester of 2016

[David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 11:42:54 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
The process will be complete when you've backported the 
entirety of 2.068.


From what I recall, 2.068 was fairly painless to merge anyway 
compared to other releases.


 — David

Re: Vision for the first semester of 2016

[Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 1/02/2016 8:46 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:


I know, I've been hitting bug after bug in 2.067, and the answer has always
been to backport from 2.068.  I already have backported druntime's object.d
from 2.068 because 2.067's object module has drifted so far out of sync
with it's hidden implementation, I couldn't build anything!  So I might as
well backport the rest of the druntime library.  Nothing much has changed
as it was a "bugfix" release.



The process will be complete when you've backported the entirety of 2.068.

Re: My LLVM talk @ FOSDEM'16

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Saturday, 30 January 2016 at 12:25:38 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:
Live streaming is index here: 
https://fosdem.org/2016/schedule/streaming/


Room is K.3.201.

Regards,
Kai

On Thursday, 7 January 2016 at 23:38:07 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:

Hi everybody!

Like the last 2 years I am a speaker in the LLVM toolchain 
devroom @ FOSDEM'16.
My talk is not D related but more about LLVM internals. (For 
sure, it is related to my work on LDC!)


Read the announcement at 
https://fosdem.org/2016/schedule/event/llvm_to_new_os/.


FOSDEM is a two-day event organised by volunteers to promote 
the widespread use of open source software.


Taking place in the beautiful city of Brussels (Belgium), 
FOSDEM is widely recognised as "the best open source 
conference in Europe".


FOSDEM 2016 will take place at ULB Campus Solbosch on Saturday 
30 and Sunday 31 January 2016. Read more about the event at 
https://fosdem.org/2016/.


Regards,
Kai


Is there any recording ?

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

[Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Chris Wright via
Digitalmars-d-announce  wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:03:25 +0200, Rory McGuire via
> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>
>> The problem is the D logo etc at the top of his docs mixed with Adam's
>> resentment. Your email validates what I was suggesting he should avoid.
>
> My newsreader's history doesn't support your memory of events.
>
> The problem you cited was "insulting our official docs" and (nonexistent)
> community splits resulting from the insults. Your predicted / recommended
> response to that problem was "a cease and desist letter from the D
> Foundation".
>
> There's no evidence that you considered trademark issues at all until I
> brought them up. If I'd cited copyright infringement instead, I'm betting
> you would have jumped on that, even though the docs are Boost-licensed.

Are you trying to understand me, or alienate me? I'm unsure what your
motivation is for undermining my trying to explain myself in more
words.

>
> What I would actually expect, instead of a C letter, is a set of
> guidelines for using the D logo and other trademarked material. That's
> pretty standard for open source projects. And if those guidelines forbad
> using the D logo for a documentation mirror, that would be a problem.
>
> An airtight set of guidelines probably requires a trademark lawyer, which
> probably costs more than the D Foundation has in its coffers. We might
> see a preliminary set of guidelines coming out in the next year or so.
>
> I don't see how a criticism of the official documentation (even one you
> believe is insulting) fragments the community. Most people around here
> think D's documentation is a problem. Adam Ruppe provided both specific
> feedback and an implemented alternative, which is much more constructive
> than average. He's got a pull request for content changes that he's made,
> too, which is the opposite of fragmentation.