• Trass3r (5/5) Feb 04 2010 I just searched for the keyword patch to see how many tickets are still ...
• Nick Sabalausky (4/9) Feb 04 2010 Just because there's a patch submitted doesn't mean it's been accepted a...
• Stewart Gordon (7/13) Feb 04 2010 That depends on whether by "closed" the OP means fixed or merely marked
• Don (7/23) Feb 05 2010 Yes, but look at how many of the patches are marked as 'enhancement'.
• Trass3r (7/13) Feb 05 2010 The whole thing wasn't so much about the patch ones, I just found them
• Trass3r (6/9) Feb 05 2010 I know it's probably infeasible but just imagine an automatic system tha...
• Don (7/17) Feb 05 2010 The version information is just not useful. There are only 3 useful

Trass3r <un known.com> writes:

I just searched for the keyword patch to see how many tickets are still  
open with submitted patches:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?keywords=patch&query_format=advanced&keywords_type=allwords&order=Last%20Changed&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED

Some date back to dmd 0.164 and one even is for gdc! Shouldn't those be  
closed to keep the system clean?

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"Trass3r" <un known.com> wrote in message 
news:op.u7molquq3ncmek hoenir.fem.tu-ilmenau.de...
I just searched for the keyword patch to see how many tickets are still 
open with submitted patches:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?keywords=patch&query_format=advanced&keywords_type=allwords&order=Last%20Changed&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED

 Some date back to dmd 0.164 and one even is for gdc! Shouldn't those be 
 closed to keep the system clean?

Just because there's a patch submitted doesn't mean it's been accepted and 
incorporated into DMD. 

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Trass3r" <un known.com> wrote in message 

<snip>
 Some date back to dmd 0.164 and one even is for gdc! Shouldn't those be 
 closed to keep the system clean?

 
 Just because there's a patch submitted doesn't mean it's been accepted and 
 incorporated into DMD. 

That depends on whether by "closed" the OP means fixed or merely marked 
as such.

They definitely should be fixed by folding in the patches sooner rather 
than later.

Stewart.

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Trass3r" <un known.com> wrote in message 

 <snip>
 Some date back to dmd 0.164 and one even is for gdc! Shouldn't those 
 be closed to keep the system clean?

 Just because there's a patch submitted doesn't mean it's been accepted 
 and incorporated into DMD. 

 
 That depends on whether by "closed" the OP means fixed or merely marked 
 as such.
 
 They definitely should be fixed by folding in the patches sooner rather 
 than later.
 
 Stewart.

Yes, but look at how many of the patches are marked as 'enhancement'.
Most of the old patches have problems of various kinds: they are 
incorrect or incomplete, but still useful.
The problem is with the bugzilla keywords. We need something like a 
'partial-patch' keyword. In fact the current set of keywords is *far* 
from ideal, and the version selection is really terrible.

Trass3r <un known.com> writes:

 Yes, but look at how many of the patches are marked as 'enhancement'.
 Most of the old patches have problems of various kinds: they are  
 incorrect or incomplete, but still useful.
 The problem is with the bugzilla keywords. We need something like a  
 'partial-patch' keyword. In fact the current set of keywords is *far*  
 from ideal, and the version selection is really terrible.

The whole thing wasn't so much about the patch ones, I just found them  
cause I searched for issues with patches.
My point was that some entries are damn old and sometimes it's ridiculous  
that they are still open (e.g. the first one about the makefiles).


Some patches are also rather small, just like this one:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2997

Just tried it out, works great.

Trass3r <un known.com> writes:

 The problem is with the bugzilla keywords. We need something like a  
 'partial-patch' keyword. In fact the current set of keywords is *far*  
 from ideal, and the version selection is really terrible.

I know it's probably infeasible but just imagine an automatic system that  
tests stuff like versions and OSs.
It would have all recent versions of dmd installed and automatically test  
code on different configurations ;)
I mean the basics work for codepad.org, online compilation to show the  
compiler messages.

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

Trass3r wrote:
 The problem is with the bugzilla keywords. We need something like a 
 'partial-patch' keyword. In fact the current set of keywords is *far* 
 from ideal, and the version selection is really terrible.

 
 I know it's probably infeasible but just imagine an automatic system 
 that tests stuff like versions and OSs.
 It would have all recent versions of dmd installed and automatically 
 test code on different configurations ;)
 I mean the basics work for codepad.org, online compilation to show the 
 compiler messages.

The version information is just not useful. There are only 3 useful 
versions: D1 only, D2 only, and both. Bugzilla's full of comments by 
people worrying about how they had to select 1.045 because 1.046 wasn't 
in the list yet. But it's completely useful information. (If you ever 
needed the compiler version (which you never do), you can estimate the 
compiler version from the date the bug was submitted).