• Andrew Edwards (16/16) Jan 18 2014 Beta testing for dmd 2.065 is under way. You can access the associated
• Daniel Murphy (3/4) Jan 18 2014 Windows bin folder is empty. I'd post on the list but I'm not sure it's...
• Andrew Edwards (2/6) Jan 18 2014 Thanks. New file uploaded.
• dennis luehring (2/9) Jan 18 2014 still not fully automated build down to zip file :)
• Daniel Murphy (15/16) Jan 18 2014 Looking much better.
• Jacob Carlborg (4/5) Jan 18 2014 Most likely due to the zip was created on Mac OS X.
• Walter Bright (2/18) Jan 18 2014
• Daniel Murphy (2/3) Jan 18 2014 The one in the git repo has a unix line ending.
• Walter Bright (2/5) Jan 18 2014 Must have been the dang git software!
• deadalnix (3/19) Jan 19 2014 Can we have the deb, rpm and whatnot ?
• bearophile (10/13) Jan 20 2014 So far I am not finding many bugs in this. But when is the work
• Walter Bright (2/8) Jan 20 2014 Let's get 2.065 released first.
• eles (3/12) Jan 20 2014 complex numbers
• Iain Buclaw (10/20) Jan 21 2014 are earmarked [REG2.065-b1] or [BUG2.065-b1] for easy identification,
• Dejan Lekic (25/44) Jan 21 2014 Can we *please* have a well-established, useful, naming scheme for tags ...
• Andrew Edwards (9/12) Jan 21 2014 I was just in the process of addressing this. Based on recent issues
• deadalnix (2/16) Jan 21 2014 Thank !
• Dejan Lekic (4/18) Jan 22 2014 That is absolutely briliant Andrew! Now we can use my SPEC file

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

"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. 

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.

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 :)

"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 

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

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

"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.

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!

"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 ?

"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

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.

"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

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.

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

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:






That should solve any issues you may have.

"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:






 That should solve any issues you may have.

Thank !

"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:






 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!