www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - dmd 2.065 beta 1

reply Andrew Edwards <ridimz yahoo.com> writes:
Beta testing for dmd 2.065 is under way. You can access the associated 
zip at [1] and view the current list of regressions at [2]. Make every 
effort to provide a thorough review so we can get the best product out 
the door.

Please refrain from discussing the review here in the dlang.org forums. 
Instead, post all concerns to the dmd-beta mailing list at [3]. If you 
haven't already done so, you will need to register to the mailing list 
at [4].

When submitting bug reports associated with this review, ensure they are 
earmarked [REG2.065-b1] or [BUG2.065-b1] for easy identification, 
retrieval and merger.

[1] ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.beta.1.zip
[2] 
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED
[3] http://forum.dlang.org/group/dmd-beta
[4] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
Jan 18 2014
next sibling parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com> writes:
"Andrew Edwards"  wrote in message news:lbdumk$2oki$1 digitalmars.com...
 [1] ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.beta.1.zip
Windows bin folder is empty. I'd post on the list but I'm not sure it's working at the moment.
Jan 18 2014
parent reply Andrew Edwards <ridimz yahoo.com> writes:
On 1/18/14, 8:42 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
 "Andrew Edwards"  wrote in message news:lbdumk$2oki$1 digitalmars.com...
 [1] ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.beta.1.zip
Windows bin folder is empty. I'd post on the list but I'm not sure it's working at the moment.
Thanks. New file uploaded.
Jan 18 2014
next sibling parent dennis luehring <dl.soluz gmx.net> writes:
Am 18.01.2014 15:13, schrieb Andrew Edwards:
 On 1/18/14, 8:42 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
 "Andrew Edwards"  wrote in message news:lbdumk$2oki$1 digitalmars.com...
 [1] ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.beta.1.zip
Windows bin folder is empty. I'd post on the list but I'm not sure it's working at the moment.
Thanks. New file uploaded.
still not fully automated build down to zip file :)
Jan 18 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com> writes:
"Andrew Edwards"  wrote in message news:lbe25n$2rrh$1 digitalmars.com...
 Thanks. New file uploaded.
Looking much better. I extracted this beta and the last release, and diffed the result of `dir /s` to see what changed. Some of these may be intentional, thanks to problems with the old zip - There are .DS_Store file scattered around now, these should be removed - This does not have the right version of optlink - has 8.00.13 should be 8.00.15 (check it's 223,260 bytes) - dmd2\windows\lib64 is gone... - gained phobos\std\typelist.d - lost a bunch of files in dmd2\src\druntime\src\gc - XXX\dmd2\src\VERSION now has a windows line-end... not sure if this is a problem or not - libcurl_stub.c appeared in XXX\dmd2\linux\lib* - XXX\dmd2\html\d\phobos\phobos.html disappeared
Jan 18 2014
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2014-01-18 16:33, Daniel Murphy wrote:

 - There are .DS_Store file scattered around now, these should be removed
Most likely due to the zip was created on Mac OS X. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Jan 18 2014
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/18/2014 7:33 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
 "Andrew Edwards"  wrote in message news:lbe25n$2rrh$1 digitalmars.com...
 Thanks. New file uploaded.
Looking much better. I extracted this beta and the last release, and diffed the result of `dir /s` to see what changed. Some of these may be intentional, thanks to problems with the old zip - There are .DS_Store file scattered around now, these should be removed - This does not have the right version of optlink - has 8.00.13 should be 8.00.15 (check it's 223,260 bytes) - dmd2\windows\lib64 is gone... - gained phobos\std\typelist.d - lost a bunch of files in dmd2\src\druntime\src\gc - XXX\dmd2\src\VERSION now has a windows line-end... not sure if this is a problem or not
It's a problem. There cannot be line endings in it.
 - libcurl_stub.c appeared in XXX\dmd2\linux\lib*
 - XXX\dmd2\html\d\phobos\phobos.html disappeared
Jan 18 2014
parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com> writes:
"Walter Bright"  wrote in message news:lbelqh$e54$1 digitalmars.com... 
 It's a problem. There cannot be line endings in it.
The one in the git repo has a unix line ending.
Jan 18 2014
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/18/2014 6:24 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
 "Walter Bright"  wrote in message news:lbelqh$e54$1 digitalmars.com...
 It's a problem. There cannot be line endings in it.
The one in the git repo has a unix line ending.
Must have been the dang git software!
Jan 18 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 18 January 2014 at 13:13:56 UTC, Andrew Edwards 
wrote:
 Beta testing for dmd 2.065 is under way. You can access the 
 associated zip at [1] and view the current list of regressions 
 at [2]. Make every effort to provide a thorough review so we 
 can get the best product out the door.

 Please refrain from discussing the review here in the dlang.org 
 forums. Instead, post all concerns to the dmd-beta mailing list 
 at [3]. If you haven't already done so, you will need to 
 register to the mailing list at [4].

 When submitting bug reports associated with this review, ensure 
 they are earmarked [REG2.065-b1] or [BUG2.065-b1] for easy 
 identification, retrieval and merger.

 [1] ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.beta.1.zip
 [2] 
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED
 [3] http://forum.dlang.org/group/dmd-beta
 [4] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
Can we have the deb, rpm and whatnot ?
Jan 19 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Andrew Edwards:

 When submitting bug reports associated with this review, ensure 
 they are earmarked [REG2.065-b1] or [BUG2.065-b1] for easy 
 identification, retrieval and merger.
So far I am not finding many bugs in this. But when is the work on 2.066 going to start? There are many patches. And what's the focus (if it has one) of D 2.066? I suggest to warn/deprecate all that should be deprecated (built-in sort, old operator overloading, etc), and introduce some of the little breaking changes that we think are good (like implicit joining of adjacent string literals, etc). Bye, bearophile
Jan 20 2014
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/20/2014 4:30 PM, bearophile wrote:
 So far I am not finding many bugs in this. But when is the work on 2.066 going
 to start? There are many patches. And what's the focus (if it has one) of D
 2.066? I suggest to warn/deprecate all that should be deprecated (built-in
sort,
 old operator overloading, etc), and introduce some of the little breaking
 changes that we think are good (like implicit joining of adjacent string
 literals, etc).
Let's get 2.065 released first.
Jan 20 2014
prev sibling parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 21 January 2014 at 00:30:30 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 Andrew Edwards:

 When submitting bug reports associated with this review, 
 ensure they are earmarked [REG2.065-b1] or [BUG2.065-b1] for 
 easy identification, retrieval and merger.
So far I am not finding many bugs in this. But when is the work on 2.066 going to start? There are many patches. And what's the focus (if it has one) of D 2.066? I suggest to warn/deprecate all that should be deprecated (built-in sort, old operator overloading, etc), and introduce some of the little breaking
complex numbers -property
Jan 20 2014
parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw gdcproject.org> writes:
On 21 Jan 2014 08:00, "eles" <eles eles.com> wrote:
 On Tuesday, 21 January 2014 at 00:30:30 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 Andrew Edwards:

 When submitting bug reports associated with this review, ensure they
are earmarked [REG2.065-b1] or [BUG2.065-b1] for easy identification, retrieval and merger.
 So far I am not finding many bugs in this. But when is the work on 2.066
going to start? There are many patches. And what's the focus (if it has one) of D 2.066? I suggest to warn/deprecate all that should be deprecated (built-in sort, old operator overloading, etc), and introduce some of the little breaking
 complex numbers
 -property
First fish operators, then complex numbers /me thinks. Also, wave farewell to any complex library C bindings. :) Iain.
Jan 21 2014
prev sibling parent reply Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:
Andrew Edwards wrote:

 Beta testing for dmd 2.065 is under way. You can access the associated
 zip at [1] and view the current list of regressions at [2]. Make every
 effort to provide a thorough review so we can get the best product out
 the door.
 
 Please refrain from discussing the review here in the dlang.org forums.
 Instead, post all concerns to the dmd-beta mailing list at [3]. If you
 haven't already done so, you will need to register to the mailing list
 at [4].
 
 When submitting bug reports associated with this review, ensure they are
 earmarked [REG2.065-b1] or [BUG2.065-b1] for easy identification,
 retrieval and merger.
 
 [1] ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.beta.1.zip
 [2]
 
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED
 [3] http://forum.dlang.org/group/dmd-beta
 [4] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
Can we *please* have a well-established, useful, naming scheme for tags and packages? 2.064beta3, 2.064beta4, 2.064.2, 2.065-b1... Are you as frustrated as me? For starters, you guys should first decide should we have micro part of the version at all? (major.minor.micro-qualifier) Please decide a schema and all cases should be covered by it, including betas or what I would rather call candidate-releases or release-candidates. From a standpoint of a RPM author - what I refer to as the "qualifier" (that is how OSGI names it) is basically a build-number of the package. Sometimes we, package maintaners have to rebuild set of packages because some configuration parameter had to be changed, or some file was missing, etc. Upstream should never specify this value. What upstream people should specify are major, minor and micro values. So, whatever you name your beta/rc/cr etc, please stick to the naming convention, otherwise it is going to make our life difficult. I propose you name/tag the latest DMD package like the following: 2.065.rc1 . When release comes up, it will be tagged 2.065.0 if there are 2.065 hotfix releases, they should be tagged 2.065.1, 2.065.2, etc. This is not my invention - smarted people than me come up with this, for a good reason. -- Dejan Lekic dejan.lekic (a) gmail.com http://dejan.lekic.org
Jan 21 2014
parent reply Andrew Edwards <ridimz yahoo.com> writes:
On 1/21/14, 2:20 PM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
 Can we *please* have a well-established, useful, naming scheme for tags and
 packages? 2.064beta3, 2.064beta4, 2.064.2, 2.065-b1... Are you as frustrated as
 me?
I was just in the process of addressing this. Based on recent issues with using the packaging scripts, I've changed the naming convention as follows: #.###.b# // beta #.###.rc# // release candidate #.#.0 // release #.#.# // hotfix (where last # != 0) That should solve any issues you may have.
Jan 21 2014
next sibling parent "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 21 January 2014 at 20:48:27 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote:
 On 1/21/14, 2:20 PM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
 Can we *please* have a well-established, useful, naming scheme 
 for tags and
 packages? 2.064beta3, 2.064beta4, 2.064.2, 2.065-b1... Are you 
 as frustrated as
 me?
I was just in the process of addressing this. Based on recent issues with using the packaging scripts, I've changed the naming convention as follows: #.###.b# // beta #.###.rc# // release candidate #.#.0 // release #.#.# // hotfix (where last # != 0) That should solve any issues you may have.
Thank !
Jan 21 2014
prev sibling parent "Dejan Lekic" <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 21 January 2014 at 20:48:27 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote:
 On 1/21/14, 2:20 PM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
 Can we *please* have a well-established, useful, naming scheme 
 for tags and
 packages? 2.064beta3, 2.064beta4, 2.064.2, 2.065-b1... Are you 
 as frustrated as
 me?
I was just in the process of addressing this. Based on recent issues with using the packaging scripts, I've changed the naming convention as follows: #.###.b# // beta #.###.rc# // release candidate #.#.0 // release #.#.# // hotfix (where last # != 0) That should solve any issues you may have.
That is absolutely briliant Andrew! Now we can use my SPEC file to build new DMD RPMs whenever there is a new release (tag) on GitHub!
Jan 22 2014