• Stewart Gordon (23/23) Jan 06 2007 Now that 1.0* is here, what's are we going to do with all these attempts...
• BCS (6/16) Jan 06 2007 How many of these are DMD issues as opposed to D issues? Just scanning
• Juan Jose Comellas (5/39) Jan 07 2007 It is not clear to me whether D 1.0 meant freezing the spec or having a

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Now that 1.0* is here, what's are we going to do with all these attempts 
to round up what's needed for 1.0, much of which is still pending?

* Walter's actually called it 1.00, except in the compiler itself, which 
reports its version as 1.0.  On the basis that this particular 
versioning system was two integers separated by a dot rather than a 
decimal number, is 1.00 just 1.0 with half of it expressed in octal?  :-)

1. Pending Peeves is still, according to itself, a list of "issues that 
people feel need to address, hopefully in time for D 1.0".

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PendingPeeves

2. Then there was d1.0blocker, only 4 out of 15 nominees fixed and 0 out 
of 17 nominations answered.

http://tinyurl.com/ynfztu

3. In the same area is the Bugzilla tracker to "Get the documentation 
cleaned up for 1.0", which seemed to be a little more successful, with 
11 issues fixed out of 17.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=677


I suppose part of the trouble is that, back in those days, quite a few 
of us expected 1.0 to be a milestone from a practical and not just 
symbolic POV.  And now we have a new question of which major version 
issues should be nominated to block now and what we should get the 
documentation cleaned up for now.

Any ideas?

Stewart.

BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 
 2. Then there was d1.0blocker, only 4 out of 15 nominees fixed and 0 out 
 of 17 nominations answered.
 
 http://tinyurl.com/ynfztu
 

How many of these are DMD issues as opposed to D issues? Just scanning 
through the list, none of them seem to be issues with D its self. Mostly 
DMD and the docs.

I have always felt that DMD won't be ready for 1.0 until a while after D 
1.0 is officially declared.

 
 Any ideas?
 
 Stewart.

Juan Jose Comellas <jcomellas gmail.com> writes:

It is not clear to me whether D 1.0 meant freezing the spec or having a

(http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=621) for DMD 1.0, because
the Linux version is practically unusable with bugs like this one.


Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Now that 1.0* is here, what's are we going to do with all these attempts
 to round up what's needed for 1.0, much of which is still pending?
 
 * Walter's actually called it 1.00, except in the compiler itself, which
 reports its version as 1.0.  On the basis that this particular
 versioning system was two integers separated by a dot rather than a
 decimal number, is 1.00 just 1.0 with half of it expressed in octal?  :-)
 
 1. Pending Peeves is still, according to itself, a list of "issues that
 people feel need to address, hopefully in time for D 1.0".
 
 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PendingPeeves
 
 2. Then there was d1.0blocker, only 4 out of 15 nominees fixed and 0 out
 of 17 nominations answered.
 
 http://tinyurl.com/ynfztu
 
 3. In the same area is the Bugzilla tracker to "Get the documentation
 cleaned up for 1.0", which seemed to be a little more successful, with
 11 issues fixed out of 17.
 
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=677
 
 
 I suppose part of the trouble is that, back in those days, quite a few
 of us expected 1.0 to be a milestone from a practical and not just
 symbolic POV.  And now we have a new question of which major version
 issues should be nominated to block now and what we should get the
 documentation cleaned up for now.
 
 Any ideas?
 
 Stewart.