Re: dsource.org moved
On Friday, 21 August 2015 at 17:05:42 UTC, tired_eyes wrote: So, four months later, can we have some kind of warning banner on dsource.org? Done.
Re: dsource.org moved
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 13:03:34 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Friday, 21 August 2015 at 17:05:42 UTC, tired_eyes wrote: So, four months later, can we have some kind of warning banner on dsource.org? Done. Excellent, thank you! It was a source of confusion.
Re: dsource.org moved
So, four months later, can we have some kind of warning banner on dsource.org?
Re: dsource.org moved
On Saturday, 25 April 2015 at 03:36:24 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: [0] http://www.sourcetreeapp.com/ Git got a proper visualization of commit tree? :)
Re: dsource.org moved
On 28/04/2015 12:56 a.m., Kagamin wrote: On Saturday, 25 April 2015 at 03:36:24 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: [0] http://www.sourcetreeapp.com/ Git got a proper visualization of commit tree? :) Better then anything else out there!
Re: dsource.org moved
On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 21:48:30 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote: On 22/04/2015 08:20, Jacob Carlborg wrote: snip If you're forking a project on Github you get your own copy of the project. The projects are linked but the repositories are not. What I mean by that is on your fork you'll see that it is a fork with a link back to the original project. From the original project you can also view all forks. The repositories are not linked in the sense that there's no automatic syncing of code between them. The fork needs to manually pull from the original repository to get the latest changes. I guess the word link has too many meanings. :p So a fork is really a working copy of the master repository, and the code that the user will typically edit is in turn a working copy of this. And commit and push in Git terms basically mean to commit to the local fork and to commit the fork to the master repo respectively. So if pull means to update one's fork, what is a pull request requesting exactly? With git, technically, no repo is more important than another, since it's a distributed source control system rather than a centralized one. Everyone gets their own, independent repo, with its own commit history. Pushing and pulling and whatnot don't care about which repo is the primary repo or anything like that. It's just taking a set of commits from one repo and putting them in the other repo. Committing is _always_ to your local repo. You never commit to another repo. Pushing is when you control both repo A and repo B, and from the machine with repo A on it, you push a set of commits into repo B. It therefore requires that you have the permissions to manipulate repo A directly on the machine that it's on (since you're doing the operation on that machine) and that you have write permissions for repo B (since you're commanding repo B to take your commits from repo A). Pulling is when you do the commands from the machine with repo A on it and take the code from repo B and put it in repo A. You only need read permissions for repo B in that case (so it could be a public repo that you have no control over whatsoever). The typical workflow with github is that you create a branch on your local machine and make commits with whatever changes you're making. You then push that branch into your github repo for that project. So, you've created a branch there which then matches your local branch (and if you need to make further commits, those would have to be pushed separately). Then you create a pull request from your github repo for the target repo (typically the primary repo for the project, but it could be the repo of someone else you're working with). Typically, it's targeting the master branch of the target repo, but it could be for any branch in that repo. Whoever controls the target repo is notified of your pull request. They can then look over the code, suggest changes, etc. Once they're satisfied with it, they can hit the merge button on github. That tells github to pull the code from the branch in your github repo into the target repo. After that, anyone who pulls from the target repo will get your changes. And normally, you'd delete the branch that you used for that pull request and create a new one for whatever your next set of changes are. So, normally, you only push to your own github repo, and everything else is done via pulling. Now, you _can_ just push to the primary repo rather than your own github repo if you have the permissions for it, but then the code doesn't get reviewed, and only folks who have push permissions for that repo can do that (which most folks won't have). Operating that way is basically operating how svn operates, which pretty much everyone using git will tell you not to do. Hopefully, that explanation helps, but you really should read some of the guides out there for this, since they'll have pretty pictures (which can help considerably) and probably explain it better than I do. e.g. https://guides.github.com/introduction/flow/index.html http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ https://blogs.atlassian.com/2014/01/simple-git-workflow-simple/ https://sandofsky.com/blog/git-workflow.html - Jonathan M Davis
Re: dsource.org moved
On 25/04/2015 3:33 p.m., Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 21:48:30 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote: On 22/04/2015 08:20, Jacob Carlborg wrote: snip If you're forking a project on Github you get your own copy of the project. The projects are linked but the repositories are not. What I mean by that is on your fork you'll see that it is a fork with a link back to the original project. From the original project you can also view all forks. The repositories are not linked in the sense that there's no automatic syncing of code between them. The fork needs to manually pull from the original repository to get the latest changes. I guess the word link has too many meanings. :p So a fork is really a working copy of the master repository, and the code that the user will typically edit is in turn a working copy of this. And commit and push in Git terms basically mean to commit to the local fork and to commit the fork to the master repo respectively. So if pull means to update one's fork, what is a pull request requesting exactly? With git, technically, no repo is more important than another, since it's a distributed source control system rather than a centralized one. Everyone gets their own, independent repo, with its own commit history. Pushing and pulling and whatnot don't care about which repo is the primary repo or anything like that. It's just taking a set of commits from one repo and putting them in the other repo. Committing is _always_ to your local repo. You never commit to another repo. Pushing is when you control both repo A and repo B, and from the machine with repo A on it, you push a set of commits into repo B. It therefore requires that you have the permissions to manipulate repo A directly on the machine that it's on (since you're doing the operation on that machine) and that you have write permissions for repo B (since you're commanding repo B to take your commits from repo A). Pulling is when you do the commands from the machine with repo A on it and take the code from repo B and put it in repo A. You only need read permissions for repo B in that case (so it could be a public repo that you have no control over whatsoever). The typical workflow with github is that you create a branch on your local machine and make commits with whatever changes you're making. You then push that branch into your github repo for that project. So, you've created a branch there which then matches your local branch (and if you need to make further commits, those would have to be pushed separately). Then you create a pull request from your github repo for the target repo (typically the primary repo for the project, but it could be the repo of someone else you're working with). Typically, it's targeting the master branch of the target repo, but it could be for any branch in that repo. Whoever controls the target repo is notified of your pull request. They can then look over the code, suggest changes, etc. Once they're satisfied with it, they can hit the merge button on github. That tells github to pull the code from the branch in your github repo into the target repo. After that, anyone who pulls from the target repo will get your changes. And normally, you'd delete the branch that you used for that pull request and create a new one for whatever your next set of changes are. So, normally, you only push to your own github repo, and everything else is done via pulling. Now, you _can_ just push to the primary repo rather than your own github repo if you have the permissions for it, but then the code doesn't get reviewed, and only folks who have push permissions for that repo can do that (which most folks won't have). Operating that way is basically operating how svn operates, which pretty much everyone using git will tell you not to do. Hopefully, that explanation helps, but you really should read some of the guides out there for this, since they'll have pretty pictures (which can help considerably) and probably explain it better than I do. e.g. https://guides.github.com/introduction/flow/index.html http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ https://blogs.atlassian.com/2014/01/simple-git-workflow-simple/ https://sandofsky.com/blog/git-workflow.html - Jonathan M Davis Also if you are on Windows or OSX, use SourceTree[0]. I cannot recommend this enough. It'll install git, wrap it up nicely for you and even show pretty imagery regarding the current state of the repo! [0] http://www.sourcetreeapp.com/
Re: dsource.org moved
On 22/04/2015 08:20, Jacob Carlborg wrote: snip If you're forking a project on Github you get your own copy of the project. The projects are linked but the repositories are not. What I mean by that is on your fork you'll see that it is a fork with a link back to the original project. From the original project you can also view all forks. The repositories are not linked in the sense that there's no automatic syncing of code between them. The fork needs to manually pull from the original repository to get the latest changes. I guess the word link has too many meanings. :p So a fork is really a working copy of the master repository, and the code that the user will typically edit is in turn a working copy of this. And commit and push in Git terms basically mean to commit to the local fork and to commit the fork to the master repo respectively. So if pull means to update one's fork, what is a pull request requesting exactly? Stewart. -- My email address is valid but not my primary mailbox and not checked regularly. Please keep replies on the 'group where everybody may benefit.
Re: dsource.org moved
On 2015-04-22 00:06, Stewart Gordon wrote: One of the comments there: Or you make your repository public, then everyone (who is not a collaborator) has read-only access And everyone who _is_ a collaborator has what? Push access (svn would call this commit access). I don't think collaborators have access to the settings of the project thought. Perhaps that is dependent on what role the collaborator has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29 implies that a fork is a divergent development branch - a separate copy of the project that has no ongoing link to the original. Is the Git concept of a fork different? If you're forking a project on Github you get your own copy of the project. The projects are linked but the repositories are not. What I mean by that is on your fork you'll see that it is a fork with a link back to the original project. From the original project you can also view all forks. The repositories are not linked in the sense that there's no automatic syncing of code between them. The fork needs to manually pull from the original repository to get the latest changes. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dsource.org moved
On 21/04/2015 00:35, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: snip In the other thread I referred to this http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5010754/github-collaborators-have-commit-access which makes it sound as though it's possible to do the same thing in GitHub. Is that page wrong? This question pertains to private GitHub repositories (a feature of paid plans). One of the comments there: Or you make your repository public, then everyone (who is not a collaborator) has read-only access And everyone who _is_ a collaborator has what? Regardless, I do not recommend attempting to shoehorn your previous SVN workflow into git and GitHub. The usual way contributions are done with GitHub is that anyone with a GitHub account can create a pull request (a series of commits, initially published on their own fork of the repository), which the repository owner (or collaborators) can then accept (merge) into the main repository. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29 implies that a fork is a divergent development branch - a separate copy of the project that has no ongoing link to the original. Is the Git concept of a fork different? Instead of designating a group of committers as in SVN, you would simply need to review pull requests and click the merge button to accept them. If you do not foresee yourself being available often enough to review/accept pull requests, you can designate a few collaborators who can do it as well. Maybe I'll do that. Most of the time I should be available enough, but there's always the chance that I'll be away for a week every now and again (possibly longer if I'm lucky). Stewart. -- My email address is valid but not my primary mailbox and not checked regularly. Please keep replies on the 'group where everybody may benefit.
Re: dsource.org moved
On 20/04/2015 00:25, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: snip Even if he had, what would be the point? It would greatly slow down the whole process. We have SVN repositories so that people can just put their updates straight in, Only those who have access can do that. Getting patches into the bindings repository has been historically difficult. Committers have had to commit patches on behalf of other people. snip ?? When I worked on the project on dsource, until it stopped working recently I generally had no trouble just committing my updates using SVN. I didn't have to create patches at all. As I understood it, neither did anybody else who helped out (after all, it wasn't _my_ dsource project). Stewart. -- My email address is valid but not my primary mailbox and not checked regularly. Please keep replies on the 'group where everybody may benefit.
Re: dsource.org moved
On Monday, 20 April 2015 at 23:27:58 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote: On 21/04/2015 00:19, Stewart Gordon wrote: snip ?? When I worked on the project on dsource, until it stopped working recently I generally had no trouble just committing my updates using SVN. I didn't have to create patches at all. As I understood it, neither did anybody else who helped out (after all, it wasn't _my_ dsource project). OK, so come to think about it, maybe those who were collaborating were given commit access on dsource as and when. I believe this is the case. That, or they simply didn't have SVN installed. They sent a PR to my GitHub mirror instead. In the other thread I referred to this http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5010754/github-collaborators-have-commit-access which makes it sound as though it's possible to do the same thing in GitHub. Is that page wrong? This question pertains to private GitHub repositories (a feature of paid plans). Regardless, I do not recommend attempting to shoehorn your previous SVN workflow into git and GitHub. The usual way contributions are done with GitHub is that anyone with a GitHub account can create a pull request (a series of commits, initially published on their own fork of the repository), which the repository owner (or collaborators) can then accept (merge) into the main repository. Instead of designating a group of committers as in SVN, you would simply need to review pull requests and click the merge button to accept them. If you do not foresee yourself being available often enough to review/accept pull requests, you can designate a few collaborators who can do it as well.
Re: dsource.org moved
On 21/04/2015 00:19, Stewart Gordon wrote: snip ?? When I worked on the project on dsource, until it stopped working recently I generally had no trouble just committing my updates using SVN. I didn't have to create patches at all. As I understood it, neither did anybody else who helped out (after all, it wasn't _my_ dsource project). OK, so come to think about it, maybe those who were collaborating were given commit access on dsource as and when. And maybe one or two projects were completely open read/write access. My memory of how access control worked is blurred. In the other thread I referred to this http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5010754/github-collaborators-have-commit-access which makes it sound as though it's possible to do the same thing in GitHub. Is that page wrong? Stewart. -- My email address is valid but not my primary mailbox and not checked regularly. Please keep replies on the 'group where everybody may benefit.
Re: dsource.org moved
On Friday, 17 April 2015 at 21:34:07 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote: Has Walter promised us that every pull request for the WindowsAPI bindings will be put in right away? Pull requests are merged once they pass review and automatic testing. Walter Bright is not the only person who can merge pull requests - anyone with commit access can. Even if he had, what would be the point? It would greatly slow down the whole process. We have SVN repositories so that people can just put their updates straight in, Only those who have access can do that. Getting patches into the bindings repository has been historically difficult. Committers have had to commit patches on behalf of other people. and everyone else not only has access to the update straight away but can obtain it with either a one-line command line invocation or a few mouse clicks. Git is not different in this regard. Proposed changes are immediately available in your personal fork.
Re: dsource.org moved
The wiki is terribly broken at the moment. I just edited a page http://www.dsource.org/projects/bindings/wiki/WikiStart and it changed every linebreak to the literal string `\r\n`. The page looks OK in preview, but then it breaks when you actually save it. Stewart. -- My email address is valid but not my primary mailbox and not checked regularly. Please keep replies on the 'group where everybody may benefit.
Re: dsource.org moved
On Friday, 17 April 2015 at 21:34:07 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote: On 17/04/2015 02:19, lobo wrote: On Thursday, 16 April 2015 at 23:32:17 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote: snip I don't understand - how would an average member of the D community get into the DMD package on dlang.org in order to apply these updates? Get DMD, Druntime and Phobos and build them: http://wiki.dlang.org/Building_DMD Why would one need to build DMD in order to make changes to a set of API bindings? Make your changes and test. Contribute your changes back to D using pull requests. http://wiki.dlang.org/Pull_Requests Has Walter promised us that every pull request for the WindowsAPI bindings will be put in right away? Even if he had, what would be the point? It would greatly slow down the whole process. We have SVN repositories so that people can just put their updates straight in, and everyone else not only has access to the update straight away but can obtain it with either a one-line command line invocation or a few mouse clicks. The only problem is that the SVN server that is currently hosting the bindings doesn't work properly. We already have a potential solution: moving it across to Github. As such, I'm going to see if I can figure out how to do this. Stewart. Sorry, my mistake. I thought you were asking about how to contribute bindings back to Phobos. bye, lobo
Re: dsource.org moved
On Thursday, 16 April 2015 at 23:32:17 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote: On 16/04/2015 03:35, Rikki Cattermole wrote: On 16/04/2015 11:25 a.m., Stewart Gordon wrote: snip How would we go about committing updates to it when this is done? Let's say there is a new function in gdi.h added. You would look for the file: core/sys/windows/windows/gdi.d And add the function declaration. Or if it is a whole new file: Add: core/sys/windows/windows/newFile.d Add line: public import core.sys.windows.windows.newFile; To: core/sys/windows/windows/package.d Basically the same process as now, except spread out across more files. I don't understand - how would an average member of the D community get into the DMD package on dlang.org in order to apply these updates? Get DMD, Druntime and Phobos and build them: http://wiki.dlang.org/Building_DMD Make your changes and test. Contribute your changes back to D using pull requests. http://wiki.dlang.org/Pull_Requests bye, lobo
Re: dsource.org moved
On 16/04/2015 03:35, Rikki Cattermole wrote: On 16/04/2015 11:25 a.m., Stewart Gordon wrote: snip How would we go about committing updates to it when this is done? Let's say there is a new function in gdi.h added. You would look for the file: core/sys/windows/windows/gdi.d And add the function declaration. Or if it is a whole new file: Add: core/sys/windows/windows/newFile.d Add line: public import core.sys.windows.windows.newFile; To: core/sys/windows/windows/package.d Basically the same process as now, except spread out across more files. I don't understand - how would an average member of the D community get into the DMD package on dlang.org in order to apply these updates? -- My email address is valid but not my primary mailbox and not checked regularly. Please keep replies on the 'group where everybody may benefit.
Re: dsource.org moved
On 16/04/2015 11:25 a.m., Stewart Gordon wrote: On 08/04/2015 03:21, Rikki Cattermole wrote: On 8/04/2015 9:44 a.m., Stewart Gordon wrote: snip Yes, a set of bindings to eventually put into Phobos/druntime was the aim of the WindowsAPI project from the beginning. But unfortunately, progress has been slow. Instead of moving to Github, this should be done instead. Thanks to package.d files it shouldn't be too hard to up and replace into core.sys.windows.windows. How would we go about committing updates to it when this is done? Stewart. Let's say there is a new function in gdi.h added. You would look for the file: core/sys/windows/windows/gdi.d And add the function declaration. Or if it is a whole new file: Add: core/sys/windows/windows/newFile.d Add line: public import core.sys.windows.windows.newFile; To: core/sys/windows/windows/package.d Basically the same process as now, except spread out across more files.
Re: dsource.org moved
I haven't been active on the newsgroups lately, so lose track of what's going on. Has anything happened? Just now I tried to commit to the bindings project on dsource, but got an error POST request on '/projects/bindings/!svn/me' failed: 500 Internal Server Error Has it been doing this for a long time? Or is it just a temporary problem? Bindings is certainly a project that needs to be kept alive, whether here or somewhere else, but either way it needs to be possible to commit to it. There's already a mirror of bindings on GitHub. https://github.com/CS-svnmirror/dsource-bindings I don't know if it would be reasonable to convert this into the live bindings repository. The name 'CS-svnmirror/dsource-bindings' implies that it's a mirror of the dsource repo - can the name be changed? Or would we need to create a new repo on GitHub to carry on where the dsource one left off? Moreover, I haven't taken the time to get to know GitHub. I've just realised that at least it has a wiki facility. Is it structured in basically the same way as the dsource wiki? Stewart. -- My email address is valid but not my primary mailbox and not checked regularly. Please keep replies on the 'group where everybody may benefit.
Re: dsource.org moved
We are hardly work on modern CMS for news sites. It's beta version work on dlang.ru I would like to suggest to move dsource to our CMS, and make from it's collective blog.
Re: dsource.org moved
On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 16:33:37 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote: I haven't been active on the newsgroups lately, so lose track of what's going on. Has anything happened? Just now I tried to commit to the bindings project on dsource, but got an error POST request on '/projects/bindings/!svn/me' failed: 500 Internal Server Error Has it been doing this for a long time? Or is it just a temporary problem? Bindings is certainly a project that needs to be kept alive, whether here or somewhere else, but either way it needs to be possible to commit to it. Sorry about that. It looks like pushing to SVN is broken. I don't remember if this is a new problem. I've just spent two hours trying to fix it, and though I thought I made some progress, now some Apache module is mysteriously segfaulting. I'm not sure if I should spend more time on this. There's already a mirror of bindings on GitHub. https://github.com/CS-svnmirror/dsource-bindings This is my GitHub account for mirrors of SVN repositories. I don't know if it would be reasonable to convert this into the live bindings repository. The name 'CS-svnmirror/dsource-bindings' implies that it's a mirror of the dsource repo - can the name be changed? Or would we need to create a new repo on GitHub to carry on where the dsource one left off? Yes, we can move the repository to GitHub. Since Git is distributed, you could just clone the mirror, create a new repository, and push it there. I'll remove my mirror then, to avoid confusion. It's probably past time anyway, as the bindings project is the only active project on DSource. Everyone else moved to GitHub years ago. Moreover, I haven't taken the time to get to know GitHub. I've just realised that at least it has a wiki facility. Is it structured in basically the same way as the dsource wiki? I'm not sure how far the comparison goes. It has a wiki which can contain multiple pages which can link to each other, that much I can say. Speaking in broader terms, I think the only useful part of the bindings project is the Win32 API. Everything else is provided from Derelict or Deimos. Ultimately, I think the bindings should be moved to Druntime, but it would take some work to integrate them with the existing ones to allow a seamless transition.
Re: dsource.org moved
On 07/04/2015 19:34, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 16:33:37 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote: I haven't been active on the newsgroups lately, so lose track of what's going on. Has anything happened? Just now I tried to commit to the bindings project on dsource, but got an error POST request on '/projects/bindings/!svn/me' failed: 500 Internal Server Error Has it been doing this for a long time? Or is it just a temporary problem? Bindings is certainly a project that needs to be kept alive, whether here or somewhere else, but either way it needs to be possible to commit to it. Sorry about that. It looks like pushing to SVN is broken. I don't remember if this is a new problem. I've just spent two hours trying to fix it, and though I thought I made some progress, now some Apache module is mysteriously segfaulting. I'm not sure if I should spend more time on this. I've just tried committing again. And it seems it's generally managing to send one or two files and then failing on the next. (Though admittedly, I didn't think I had *that* many pending updates! They seem to be mostly small tweaks.) Command: Commit Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\aclui.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\basetyps.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\commctrl.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\commdlg.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\dbt.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\dhcpcsdk.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\directx\dsound8.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\imm.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\mswsock.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\ntsecapi.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\ras.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\rpcdce.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\w32api.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\winbase.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\windef.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\winnt.d Modified: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\winuser.d Sending content: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\ntsecapi.d Sending content: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\dbt.d Sending content: C:\Users\Stewart\Documents\Programming\D\win32\windef.d Error: Commit failed (details follow): Error: PUT request on '/projects/bindings/!svn/txr/433-6/trunk/win32/windef.d' failed: Error: 500 Internal Server Error Error: Additional errors: Error: DELETE request on '/projects/bindings/!svn/txn/433-6' failed: 500 Internal Error: Server Error Completed!: And since the design of SVN is such that commits are atomic, this causes the whole commit to fail. So I guess I'll have to try committing just a few at a time and see if that works. Still, if you can get it working more reliably it would be most helpful. snip Yes, we can move the repository to GitHub. Since Git is distributed, you could just clone the mirror, create a new repository, and push it there. I'll remove my mirror then, to avoid confusion. We would need to make sure people know that the bindings project is finally being moved across. I suppose that we would migrate the wiki pages across at the same time as we do this, and replace them on dsource with a notice telling people where to find it. snip Speaking in broader terms, I think the only useful part of the bindings project is the Win32 API. Everything else is provided from Derelict or Deimos. Ultimately, I think the bindings should be moved to Druntime, but it would take some work to integrate them with the existing ones to allow a seamless transition. Yes, a set of bindings to eventually put into Phobos/druntime was the aim of the WindowsAPI project from the beginning. But unfortunately, progress has been slow. Stewart. -- My email address is valid but not my primary mailbox and not checked regularly. Please keep replies on the 'group where everybody may benefit.
Re: dsource.org moved
On 07/04/2015 22:44, Stewart Gordon wrote: snip So I guess I'll have to try committing just a few at a time and see if that works. snip Oh dear, it seems even that doesn't. It isn't predictable at what point it will fail, but every single time it's failing somewhere. Even if I try to commit just one file at a time. Stewart. -- My email address is valid but not my primary mailbox and not checked regularly. Please keep replies on the 'group where everybody may benefit.
Re: dsource.org moved
On 8/04/2015 9:44 a.m., Stewart Gordon wrote: snip Yes, a set of bindings to eventually put into Phobos/druntime was the aim of the WindowsAPI project from the beginning. But unfortunately, progress has been slow. Instead of moving to Github, this should be done instead. Thanks to package.d files it shouldn't be too hard to up and replace into core.sys.windows.windows.
Re: dsource.org moved
On 02.12.2014 23:20, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: DSource in the headlines? In 2014? Shocking, I know. Since Brad is no longer an active D user, and the website has had spotty uptime lately, I've offered to take over the hosting and any maintenance. Although opinions exist that the site should simply be shut down, I think archiving it would be a better approach. The website has historical relevance to the D community, and might be required to get ancient D code running again. For example, we could make things read-only and make it obvious on every project page that we don't go to DSource any more. I can't exactly undertake a large redesign, but we can discuss our options. Planet D (planet.dsource.org) is moved as well, and should continue to operate merrily. If your D blog's not there, let me know! This finally motivated me to move cv2pdb from dsource to github, it's now here: https://github.com/rainers/cv2pdb Trying to add a respective banner to the wiki start page caused the page to be unreadable (preview was ok), because all CR LF seemed to be escaped in the submitted text. Could this be a result of the move?
Re: dsource.org moved
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 08:04:05 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote: On 02.12.2014 23:20, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: DSource in the headlines? In 2014? Shocking, I know. Since Brad is no longer an active D user, and the website has had spotty uptime lately, I've offered to take over the hosting and any maintenance. Although opinions exist that the site should simply be shut down, I think archiving it would be a better approach. The website has historical relevance to the D community, and might be required to get ancient D code running again. For example, we could make things read-only and make it obvious on every project page that we don't go to DSource any more. I can't exactly undertake a large redesign, but we can discuss our options. Planet D (planet.dsource.org) is moved as well, and should continue to operate merrily. If your D blog's not there, let me know! This finally motivated me to move cv2pdb from dsource to github, it's now here: https://github.com/rainers/cv2pdb Trying to add a respective banner to the wiki start page caused the page to be unreadable (preview was ok), because all CR LF seemed to be escaped in the submitted text. Could this be a result of the move? Very likely. I'll have some fun debugging this one! As a workaround, you could replace the page with a one-liner pointing to the GitHub repo for now :)
Re: dsource.org moved
I think DSource should not be shut down, but instead modernised and open for new D-based projects. We, old D programmers, just love DSource! :)
Re: dsource.org moved
On Wednesday, 3 December 2014 at 06:39:34 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Tuesday, 2 December 2014 at 23:02:32 UTC, Kiith-Sa wrote: On Tuesday, 2 December 2014 at 22:20:29 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: DSource in the headlines? In 2014? Shocking, I know. Since Brad is no longer an active D user, and the website has had spotty uptime lately, I've offered to take over the hosting and any maintenance. Although opinions exist that the site should simply be shut down, I think archiving it would be a better approach. The website has historical relevance to the D community, and might be required to get ancient D code running again. For example, we could make things read-only and make it obvious on every project page that we don't go to DSource any more. I can't exactly undertake a large redesign, but we can discuss our options. Planet D (planet.dsource.org) is moved as well, and should continue to operate merrily. If your D blog's not there, let me know! My blog is not there, but it's not pure D blog: defenestrate.eu defenestrate.eu/rss.html Any way you can provide an RSS or ATOM feed for just the posts tagged D? Don't know any way other than maybe modifying the generator I'm using, but I don't have the time to do that in near future (I know little about how RSS works/web dev in general so I'd have to spend some time learning that too). I'm using a static site generator (Tinkerer) based on Sphinx/ReStructuredText (think Markdown on steroids), so the blog is actually a static site.
Re: dsource.org moved
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:13:12 + Dejan Lekic via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: I think DSource should not be shut down, but instead modernised and open for new D-based projects. We, old D programmers, just love DSource! :) the problem with current dsource is that keeps poping up in first google results. yesterday my mate asked me why we don't have gtk+ bindings for D. i answered just google gtkD, he did it and the first result was dsource link, which points just to svn repo, w/o docs and such. this is disaster. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: dsource.org moved
On Wednesday, 3 December 2014 at 20:24:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:13:12 + Dejan Lekic via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: I think DSource should not be shut down, but instead modernised and open for new D-based projects. We, old D programmers, just love DSource! :) the problem with current dsource is that keeps poping up in first google results. yesterday my mate asked me why we don't have gtk+ bindings for D. i answered just google gtkD, he did it and the first result was dsource link, which points just to svn repo, w/o docs and such. this is disaster. Erm, that was due to a misconfiguration from a last-minute change. Sorry. Fixed now. http://www.dsource.org/projects/gtkd/
Re: dsource.org moved
On Wednesday, 3 December 2014 at 20:42:28 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Wednesday, 3 December 2014 at 20:24:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:13:12 + Dejan Lekic via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: I think DSource should not be shut down, but instead modernised and open for new D-based projects. We, old D programmers, just love DSource! :) the problem with current dsource is that keeps poping up in first google results. yesterday my mate asked me why we don't have gtk+ bindings for D. i answered just google gtkD, he did it and the first result was dsource link, which points just to svn repo, w/o docs and such. this is disaster. Erm, that was due to a misconfiguration from a last-minute change. Sorry. Fixed now. Added monitoring so this (at least this particular problem) won't happen again :)
Re: dsource.org moved
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 20:42:27 + Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: On Wednesday, 3 December 2014 at 20:24:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:13:12 + Dejan Lekic via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: I think DSource should not be shut down, but instead modernised and open for new D-based projects. We, old D programmers, just love DSource! :) the problem with current dsource is that keeps poping up in first google results. yesterday my mate asked me why we don't have gtk+ bindings for D. i answered just google gtkD, he did it and the first result was dsource link, which points just to svn repo, w/o docs and such. this is disaster. Erm, that was due to a misconfiguration from a last-minute change. Sorry. Fixed now. thank you. but i mean that dsource.org is still poping up in results and it contains alot of obsolete projects. some projects was forked long time ago and their dsource pages weren't updated, some are just dead. people keep hitting dsource, trying projects and leaving with a great frustration: ah, nothing is working, what a mess! besides, all that projects seems dead, so seems D. i think that the whole dsource site must be shut down and replaced with a stub (except planetD) to stop this disease. that site was great, but now it does more harm than good. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: dsource.org moved
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 20:42:27 + Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: On Wednesday, 3 December 2014 at 20:24:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:13:12 + Dejan Lekic via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: I think DSource should not be shut down, but instead modernised and open for new D-based projects. We, old D programmers, just love DSource! :) the problem with current dsource is that keeps poping up in first google results. yesterday my mate asked me why we don't have gtk+ bindings for D. i answered just google gtkD, he did it and the first result was dsource link, which points just to svn repo, w/o docs and such. this is disaster. Erm, that was due to a misconfiguration from a last-minute change. Sorry. Fixed now. ah, there is another post in D.learn, where guy tries to find python-d and hit dsource instead of bitbucket. kill that dsource monster, please! it hurts the whole community and it hurts newcomers alot! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: dsource.org moved
On 12/3/2014 1:32 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: thank you. but i mean that dsource.org is still poping up in results and it contains alot of obsolete projects. some projects was forked long time ago and their dsource pages weren't updated, some are just dead. people keep hitting dsource, trying projects and leaving with a great frustration: ah, nothing is working, what a mess! besides, all that projects seems dead, so seems D. i think that the whole dsource site must be shut down and replaced with a stub (except planetD) to stop this disease. that site was great, but now it does more harm than good. Makes sense.
Re: dsource.org moved
On Wednesday, 3 December 2014 at 21:37:33 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 20:42:27 + Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: On Wednesday, 3 December 2014 at 20:24:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:13:12 + Dejan Lekic via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: I think DSource should not be shut down, but instead modernised and open for new D-based projects. We, old D programmers, just love DSource! :) the problem with current dsource is that keeps poping up in first google results. yesterday my mate asked me why we don't have gtk+ bindings for D. i answered just google gtkD, he did it and the first result was dsource link, which points just to svn repo, w/o docs and such. this is disaster. Erm, that was due to a misconfiguration from a last-minute change. Sorry. Fixed now. ah, there is another post in D.learn, where guy tries to find python-d and hit dsource instead of bitbucket. kill that dsource monster, please! it hurts the whole community and it hurts newcomers alot! Violence is not the answer. I'll look into adding a warning banner to the site template.
Re: dsource.org moved
On Wednesday, 3 December 2014 at 21:32:27 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: i think that the whole dsource site must be shut down and replaced with a stub (except planetD) to stop this disease. that site was great, but now it does more harm than good. Alternatively: use robots.txt and don't let Google index that.
Re: dsource.org moved
On Wednesday, 3 December 2014 at 22:48:50 UTC, ponce wrote: On Wednesday, 3 December 2014 at 21:32:27 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: i think that the whole dsource site must be shut down and replaced with a stub (except planetD) to stop this disease. that site was great, but now it does more harm than good. Alternatively: use robots.txt and don't let Google index that. This will not help: clawling != indexing, and robots.txt only stops crawling. robots.txt will not prevent a site from appearing in Google search results, and it will not help in lowering a site's search popularity. All it'll do is prevent Google from showing snippets of Dsource pages, and indexing links from DSource. The existing search result ratings for DSource are because of all the existing links to it, and not so much because of the content on DSource.
Re: dsource.org moved
On 12/3/2014 2:42 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: Violence is not the answer. I'll look into adding a warning banner to the site template. Alternatively, replace the pages in dsource with forwarding pages. The page forwarded to can have two links - one to the original page, the other to the modern one.
Re: dsource.org moved
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 23:26:41 + Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: The existing search result ratings for DSource are because of all the existing links to it, and not so much because of the content on DSource. that's why it should be replaced with stub. google ranking algos knows about sites without content and will lower such sites even if they are linked from alot of other sites. btw, stub can contain email which authors of the hosted projects can use to get their sources if necessary. but i doubt that anyone will use it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: dsource.org moved
On Wednesday, 3 December 2014 at 23:26:42 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: This will not help: clawling != indexing, and robots.txt only stops crawling. robots.txt will not prevent a site from appearing in Google search results, and it will not help in lowering a site's search popularity. All it'll do is prevent Google from showing snippets of Dsource pages, and indexing links from DSource. The existing search result ratings for DSource are because of all the existing links to it, and not so much because of the content on DSource. What about using the noindex meta tag (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/93710)?
Re: dsource.org moved
On Wednesday, 3 December 2014 at 23:26:42 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: The existing search result ratings for DSource are because of all the existing links to it, and not so much because of the content on DSource. The site owner has some control using webmaster tools: https://support.google.com/webmasters/topic/1724262?hl=enref_topic=3309469 Btw, downloads.dlang.org should specify robots.txt and dlang.org/downloads.html should consider specifying noindex/nofollow on links. https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/79812?hl=en
dsource.org moved
DSource in the headlines? In 2014? Shocking, I know. Since Brad is no longer an active D user, and the website has had spotty uptime lately, I've offered to take over the hosting and any maintenance. Although opinions exist that the site should simply be shut down, I think archiving it would be a better approach. The website has historical relevance to the D community, and might be required to get ancient D code running again. For example, we could make things read-only and make it obvious on every project page that we don't go to DSource any more. I can't exactly undertake a large redesign, but we can discuss our options. Planet D (planet.dsource.org) is moved as well, and should continue to operate merrily. If your D blog's not there, let me know!
Re: dsource.org moved
On Tuesday, 2 December 2014 at 22:20:29 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: DSource in the headlines? In 2014? Shocking, I know. Since Brad is no longer an active D user, and the website has had spotty uptime lately, I've offered to take over the hosting and any maintenance. Although opinions exist that the site should simply be shut down, I think archiving it would be a better approach. The website has historical relevance to the D community, and might be required to get ancient D code running again. For example, we could make things read-only and make it obvious on every project page that we don't go to DSource any more. I can't exactly undertake a large redesign, but we can discuss our options. Planet D (planet.dsource.org) is moved as well, and should continue to operate merrily. If your D blog's not there, let me know! My blog is not there, but it's not pure D blog: defenestrate.eu defenestrate.eu/rss.html
Re: dsource.org moved
On 12/2/2014 2:20 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: DSource in the headlines? In 2014? Shocking, I know. Since Brad is no longer an active D user, and the website has had spotty uptime lately, I've offered to take over the hosting and any maintenance. Although opinions exist that the site should simply be shut down, I think archiving it would be a better approach. The website has historical relevance to the D community, and might be required to get ancient D code running again. For example, we could make things read-only and make it obvious on every project page that we don't go to DSource any more. I can't exactly undertake a large redesign, but we can discuss our options. This is good news. Keeping it available is what is most important. I wonder if the projects themselves can be migrated to github - then if someone wants to update one and add it to dub, that'd be cool. Planet D (planet.dsource.org) is moved as well, and should continue to operate merrily. If your D blog's not there, let me know! Pretty dazz!
Re: dsource.org moved
On Tuesday, 2 December 2014 at 23:02:32 UTC, Kiith-Sa wrote: [snip] My blog is not there, but it's not pure D blog: defenestrate.eu defenestrate.eu/rss.html If you can add an rss feed for specific categories he could just add that. I know he's done that for some of the planet D blogs. I'd like to see yours included. It's good reading.
Re: dsource.org moved
On Tuesday, 2 December 2014 at 23:02:32 UTC, Kiith-Sa wrote: On Tuesday, 2 December 2014 at 22:20:29 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: DSource in the headlines? In 2014? Shocking, I know. Since Brad is no longer an active D user, and the website has had spotty uptime lately, I've offered to take over the hosting and any maintenance. Although opinions exist that the site should simply be shut down, I think archiving it would be a better approach. The website has historical relevance to the D community, and might be required to get ancient D code running again. For example, we could make things read-only and make it obvious on every project page that we don't go to DSource any more. I can't exactly undertake a large redesign, but we can discuss our options. Planet D (planet.dsource.org) is moved as well, and should continue to operate merrily. If your D blog's not there, let me know! My blog is not there, but it's not pure D blog: defenestrate.eu defenestrate.eu/rss.html Any way you can provide an RSS or ATOM feed for just the posts tagged D?
Re: dsource.org moved
On 2014-12-02 23:20, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: DSource in the headlines? In 2014? Shocking, I know. Since Brad is no longer an active D user, and the website has had spotty uptime lately, I've offered to take over the hosting and any maintenance. Although opinions exist that the site should simply be shut down, I think archiving it would be a better approach. The website has historical relevance to the D community, and might be required to get ancient D code running again. For example, we could make things read-only and make it obvious on every project page that we don't go to DSource any more. I can't exactly undertake a large redesign, but we can discuss our options. Could we put a banner (or similar) at the top of every page with some appropriate text as a warning? -- /Jacob Carlborg
