Re: Start of dmd 2.064 beta program

2013-12-10 Thread eles
On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:20:54 UTC, bearophile wrote: eles: Speaking about that, why DMD's source files are written in C++ but bear extension .c? You seem to appreciate for yourselves a freedom that he denies to others. Thank you for bringing that good example. Forbidding

Re: Start of dmd 2.064 beta program

2013-12-10 Thread Frustrated
On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:39:27 UTC, eles wrote: On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:34:37 UTC, dennis luehring wrote: Am 31.10.2013 16:22, schrieb eles: On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:13:20 UTC, dennis luehring wrote: Am 31.10.2013 16:01, schrieb eles: On Thursday, 31 October

Re: Start of dmd 2.064 beta program

2013-12-10 Thread eles
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 09:44:38 UTC, Frustrated wrote: On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:39:27 UTC, eles wrote: On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:34:37 UTC, dennis luehring wrote: Am 31.10.2013 16:22, schrieb eles: On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:13:20 UTC, dennis luehring

Re: Build Master: Progress toward 2.065

2013-12-10 Thread Andrew Edwards
On 12/10/13, 2:16 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-12-09 16:30, Jacob Carlborg wrote: Make sure I got GCC, I don't think the test suite passes if DMD built with Clang. * you got. Ok... will do.

Re: Build Master: Progress toward 2.065

2013-12-10 Thread Andrew Edwards
On 12/10/13, 12:45 AM, Kenji Hara wrote: On Monday, 9 December 2013 at 15:51:47 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Monday, 9 December 2013 at 14:49:05 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: 2) What is the process to update a branch with all changes master? I will need to do this because a lot of changes have

Re: Build Master: Progress toward 2.065

2013-12-10 Thread Dicebot
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 05:45:26 UTC, Kenji Hara wrote: On Monday, 9 December 2013 at 15:51:47 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Monday, 9 December 2013 at 14:49:05 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: 2) What is the process to update a branch with all changes master? I will need to do this because a lot

Re: Build Master: Progress toward 2.065

2013-12-10 Thread Dicebot
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 12:57:10 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: I which case, updating with master will be counter productive. Thanks for the heads up. I will just have to rely on the devs to cherry-pick what was not originally included in the branch. cherry-picking is discouraged in that

Re: Build Master: Progress toward 2.065

2013-12-10 Thread David Nadlinger
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:01:50 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 12:57:10 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: I which case, updating with master will be counter productive. Thanks for the heads up. I will just have to rely on the devs to cherry-pick what was not originally

Re: Build Master: Progress toward 2.065

2013-12-10 Thread eles
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:01:50 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 12:57:10 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: cherry-picking is discouraged in that scenario as it will complicate merging 2.065 branch back into master after release. rebase sounds like best fit. Or just

Re: Build Master: Progress toward 2.065

2013-12-10 Thread Dicebot
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:25:02 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:01:50 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 12:57:10 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: I which case, updating with master will be counter productive. Thanks for the heads up. I will

Re: Build Master: Progress toward 2.065

2013-12-10 Thread David Nadlinger
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:30:22 UTC, Dicebot wrote: Can't agree. Release _tags_ are public. Release branches exist primarily to organize development. I'm not talking about public in the sense of them being an artefact we want to provide to end-users, but just in the sense that more

Re: Build Master: Progress toward 2.065

2013-12-10 Thread Dicebot
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:37:11 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 13:30:22 UTC, Dicebot wrote: Can't agree. Release _tags_ are public. Release branches exist primarily to organize development. I'm not talking about public in the sense of them being an

Re: Build Master: Progress toward 2.065

2013-12-10 Thread Leandro Lucarella
Dicebot, el 10 de December a las 14:01 me escribiste: On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 12:57:10 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: I which case, updating with master will be counter productive. Thanks for the heads up. I will just have to rely on the devs to cherry-pick what was not originally included

Re: Build Master: Progress toward 2.065

2013-12-10 Thread Dicebot
On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 15:09:13 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: I don't understand. Rebasing the release branch on top of master shouldn't be an option, as it means you are taking all the changes to master and put them in the release branch. That's just using master as a release

Re: Build Master: Progress toward 2.065

2013-12-10 Thread Andrew Edwards
On 12/10/13, 10:18 AM, Dicebot wrote: On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 15:09:13 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: I don't understand. Rebasing the release branch on top of master shouldn't be an option, as it means you are taking all the changes to master and put them in the release branch. That's