www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - code cleanup in druntime and phobos

reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
Hello.

there are some c-style array declarations both in druntime and in
phobos. i made two patches that fixes 'em:

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D13401
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D13402
Aug 30 2014
next sibling parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 10:57:51 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:

 Hello.

 there are some c-style array declarations both in druntime and 
 in
 phobos. i made two patches that fixes 'em:

 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13401
 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13402


If you want to contribute, please create pull requests on github:

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language

It's doubtful that anyone is going to take your patches and 
create PR's for you. So, creating patches and adding them to 
bugzilla isn't particularly useful, even if it's good code.

- Jonathan M Davis
Aug 30 2014
next sibling parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 11:31:13 +0000
Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 If you want to contribute, please create pull requests on github:


sorry, i'm not using github and not planning to register on github
either. i have a personal reason for it.


 It's doubtful that anyone is going to take your patches and=20
 create PR's for you. So, creating patches and adding them to=20
 bugzilla isn't particularly useful, even if it's good code.


so bugzilla should be closed then. i already told that before: there is
no sense in reporting anything to bugzilla: it will rot there forever.
unless the author makes the post in D NG -- just to be told that
bugzilla is not a place to put patches.

that's why i rarely adding anything "big" to bugzilla. i don't mind to
support my patches on my own though -- my dmd and gdc are heavily
patched already, two more patches doesn't make any difference.
Aug 30 2014
parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com> writes:
"ketmar via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message 
news:mailman.103.1409399655.5783.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...


 sorry, i'm not using github and not planning to register on github
 either. i have a personal reason for it.


That's your choice, but if you want to contribute patches to the compiler or 
libraries you will need to get over it and make an account.


 so bugzilla should be closed then. i already told that before: there is
 no sense in reporting anything to bugzilla: it will rot there forever.
 unless the author makes the post in D NG -- just to be told that
 bugzilla is not a place to put patches.


Bugzilla is for bug reports, github is for patches.  You're correct that 
there is little point in posting patches to bugzilla, or to the newsgroup.
Aug 30 2014
parent ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 22:25:18 +1000
Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 That's your choice, but if you want to contribute patches to the
 compiler or libraries you will need to get over it and make an
 account.


not *that* much. ok, i got the point and will not make noise about this
anymore.
Aug 30 2014
prev sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On 30 Aug 2014 12:35, "Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 10:57:51 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d


wrote:

 Hello.

 there are some c-style array declarations both in druntime and in
 phobos. i made two patches that fixes 'em:

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13401
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13402



 If you want to contribute, please create pull requests on github:

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language

 It's doubtful that anyone is going to take your patches and create PR's


for you. So, creating patches and adding them to bugzilla isn't
particularly useful, even if it's good code.

 - Jonathan M Davis


Responses like this aren't particularly useful either.  We have a 'patch'
keyword in bugzilla (from memory), and people are free to use that as a
tool to manage bugs raised against D.

In fact, has anyone recently gone through bug tickets with attachments and
checked for patches?  This could be one thing to do for EMSI's monthly bug
squashing event (a similar thing is already done for squashing regressions
or ICE's in the beta releases).

It doesn't take a lot of work to do this.

- Find and appropriately tag any bug reports with patches attached.
- Review the tagged bug reports.
- Mark as 'needs-work' if the patch doesn't apply.
- Mark as 'pull-request' and raise a PR if it applies and fixes the
bug/enhancement.  Use your best judgement when reviewing the code, but
after a PR has been created, it will be properly code reviewed.
- Close if the report is no longer reproducible, or patch has been applied
or rejected (rejected enhancement patch).

And doing that for a couple hours a month is better than telling people not
to send patches to bugzilla because no one will look at it.

If you put this doubt in people's minds, what does that say about the
actual bug reports?  Should I even bother raising a bug report when no one
will look at it?  Maybe I should just instead raise a PR with a test case
and a comment next to the line that ICE's.  People read PRs, so my bug will
be tended to answer fixed sooner.

(I don't actually plan in doing this).

Iain.
Aug 30 2014
next sibling parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com> writes:
"Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote in 
message news:mailman.107.1409402768.5783.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...


 Responses like this aren't particularly useful either.  We have a 'patch' 
 keyword in bugzilla
 (from memory), and people are free to use that as a tool to manage bugs 
 raised against D.


The patch keyword is (as I'm sure you know) from the pre-github days when 
contribution was done with bugzilla.  This system did not work well.


 In fact, has anyone recently gone through bug tickets with attachments and 
 checked for
 patches?  This could be one thing to do for EMSI's monthly bug squashing 
 event (a similar
 thing is already done for squashing regressions or ICE's in the beta 
 releases).


It would be useful if someone did this, but presenting somebody else's patch 
on github is not ideal.  The original author is usually in the best position 
to update and defend the patch.


 It doesn't take a lot of work to do this.


It doesn't take a lot of work to open a pull request.


 - Find and appropriately tag any bug reports with patches attached.
 - Review the tagged bug reports.
 - Mark as 'needs-work' if the patch doesn't apply.
 - Mark as 'pull-request' and raise a PR if it applies and fixes the 
 bug/enhancement.  Use your
 best judgement when reviewing the code, but after a PR has been created, 
 it will be properly
 code reviewed.
 - Close if the report is no longer reproducible, or patch has been applied 
 or rejected (rejected
 enhancement patch).


This is exactly the same as the normal procedure of inspecting a bugzilla 
issue, except with the added step of checking if an existing patch fixes the 
issue.  I assume people are already doing this.


 And doing that for a couple hours a month is better than telling people 
 not to send patches to
 bugzilla because no one will look at it.


It's wasted work over the original author just making a pull request.  If 
you're gone to the effort to fix something, you might as well follow through 
with it.


 If you put this doubt in people's minds, what does that say about the 
 actual bug reports?  Should
 I even bother raising a bug report when no one will look at it?  Maybe I 
 should just instead raise
 a PR with a test case and a comment next to the line that ICE's.  People 
 read PRs, so my bug
 will be tended to answer fixed sooner.


Making a pull request is certainly a good way to get attention for a bug you 
care about.  Although you will be told to file it in bugzilla either way.
Aug 30 2014
parent Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On 30 Aug 2014 14:05, "Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 "Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote in


message news:mailman.107.1409402768.5783.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 Responses like this aren't particularly useful either.  We have a




'patch' keyword in bugzilla

 (from memory), and people are free to use that as a tool to manage bugs




raised against D.

 The patch keyword is (as I'm sure you know) from the pre-github days when


contribution was done with bugzilla.  This system did not work well.


Every time I submitted a patch to bugzilla, it was in the next release. I
can't say I share this view.

It's like having a meeting on IRC vs. Skype.  Both get the job done, but
those on Skype think that IRC is so arcane.


 In fact, has anyone recently gone through bug tickets with attachments




and checked for

 patches?  This could be one thing to do for EMSI's monthly bug squashing




event (a similar

 thing is already done for squashing regressions or ICE's in the beta




releases).

 It would be useful if someone did this, but presenting somebody else's


patch on github is not ideal.  The original author is usually in the best
position to update and defend the patch.


If the fix can be done better, someone can raise a new PR (Kenji and Walter
occasionally do this), closing the original.

As for defending. I don't think we should worry about that.  Patches on
bugzilla should be taken with salt.


 It doesn't take a lot of work to do this.



 It doesn't take a lot of work to open a pull request.


In that case, there's no reason why you shouldn't raise the PR for the
original author then.  :o)

Iain.



 Aug 30 2014



prev sibling  parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


I agree with Iain, we should respect opinion of people trying to 
stay away from intrusive ecosystems like GitHub. While 
probability of someone picking the patches and proceeding with 
them is low (and we shouldn't give false hopes) there is no place 
for "GitHub or GTFO" reaction. It is just rude.



 Aug 30 2014



 next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 01:40:49PM +0000, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 I agree with Iain, we should respect opinion of people trying to stay
 away from intrusive ecosystems like GitHub. While probability of
 someone picking the patches and proceeding with them is low (and we
 shouldn't give false hopes) there is no place for "GitHub or GTFO"
 reaction. It is just rude.


I can't believe you people would waste hours on a useless discussion,
when it takes just 5 minutes to generate PR's from the OP's patches:

	https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/939
	https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2475

Seriously, we forum people need to get a perspective sometimes.
*grumble* *grumble*


T

-- 
Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.



 Aug 30 2014



  parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:06:55 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:

 I can't believe you people would waste hours on a useless 
 discussion,
 when it takes just 5 minutes to generate PR's from the OP's 
 patches:

 	https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/939
 	https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2475

 Seriously, we forum people need to get a perspective sometimes.
 *grumble* *grumble*


Unfortunately one cannot have a 5 min PR to change the culture :(



 Aug 30 2014



  parent  "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 02:19:39PM +0000, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:06:55 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
 Digitalmars-d wrote:

I can't believe you people would waste hours on a useless discussion,
when it takes just 5 minutes to generate PR's from the OP's patches:

	https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/939
	https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2475

Seriously, we forum people need to get a perspective sometimes.
*grumble* *grumble*


 
 Unfortunately one cannot have a 5 min PR to change the culture :(


Oh?

	https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/forum-culture/pull/1

;-)


T

-- 
What's a "hot crossed bun"? An angry rabbit.



 Aug 30 2014



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com>  writes:


"Dicebot"  wrote in message news:mrhmerdjofsrcltlgxwt forum.dlang.org...


 I agree with Iain, we should respect opinion of people trying to stay away 
 from intrusive ecosystems like GitHub. While probability of someone 
 picking the patches and proceeding with them is low (and we shouldn't give 
 false hopes) there is no place for "GitHub or GTFO" reaction. It is just 
 rude.


I'm yet to hear an actual reason why taking the 5 minutes to create a github 
account is too hard. 



 Aug 30 2014



 next sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:08:56 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:

 "Dicebot"  wrote in message 
 news:mrhmerdjofsrcltlgxwt forum.dlang.org...


 I agree with Iain, we should respect opinion of people trying 
 to stay away from intrusive ecosystems like GitHub. While 
 probability of someone picking the patches and proceeding with 
 them is low (and we shouldn't give false hopes) there is no 
 place for "GitHub or GTFO" reaction. It is just rude.


 I'm yet to hear an actual reason why taking the 5 minutes to 
 create a github account is too hard.


It is not hard, it is plain unacceptable for certain people. Call 
that religious reasons.



 Aug 30 2014



 next sibling parent  "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:18:55 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 It is not hard, it is plain unacceptable for certain people. 
 Call that religious reasons.


You should accept bug reports with complete or incomplete patches 
in order to reach stability.

You cannot expect anyone to figure out how to use github just to 
submit one tiny patch. That's like saying: «we don't really care 
about stability», or «you have to be a regular contributor in 
order to improve the system».

It is quite reasonable to follow the path of least resistance: 
sit on the patch without submitting it. If you want stability 
then you don't want that. You want to identify all problems and 
all possible solutions.



 Aug 30 2014



prev sibling  parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com>  writes:


"Dicebot"  wrote in message news:xovsaqnanmmgaltipuhz forum.dlang.org...


 It is not hard, it is plain unacceptable for certain people. Call that 
 religious reasons.


Using github is similar to our requirement to match the code style when 
submitting patches.  It's non-negotiable, because there's no good reason not 
to do it.  You just remove those tabs, then get on with it. 



 Aug 30 2014



 next sibling parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:32:01 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:

 Using github is similar to our requirement to match the code 
 style when submitting patches.  It's non-negotiable, because 
 there's no good reason not to do it.  You just remove those 
 tabs, then get on with it.


Here is a good reason: «I have no interest in learning github, 
and I personally don't care if you accept this patch, but here 
you have it in case you want to improve your system».

Here is another good reason: «Figuring out the D process is 
waaaay down on my todo list, maybe sometime next month, next 
year, next…»



 Aug 30 2014



 next sibling parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com>  writes:


"Ola Fosheim Grøstad" " wrote in message 
news:pmrjlrkkaaiguefnqypr forum.dlang.org...


 Here is a good reason: «I have no interest in learning github, and I 
 personally don't care if you accept this patch, but here you have it in 
 case you want to improve your system».

 Here is another good reason: «Figuring out the D process is waaaay down on 
 my todo list, maybe sometime next month, next year, next…»


If it takes longer to work out how to submit a pull request than make your 
patch, your patch probably wasn't worth doing. 



 Aug 30 2014



 next sibling parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:37:54 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:

 If it takes longer to work out how to submit a pull request 
 than make your patch, your patch probably wasn't worth doing.


I don't see any reasonable argument to support this view. A 
critical patch can be very small.
Telling contributors what is worthwhile and fun for them is kinda 
pointless.

Besides, if you maintain your own fork you might run into bugs 
that you have fixed that you don't know how will interact with 
the main branch. Letting someone else who know the main branch do 
the final patch based on what you have figured out is a nice 
gesture.



 Aug 30 2014



  parent  "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com>  writes:


"Ola Fosheim Grøstad" " wrote in message 
news:imcohxrhmfpkgjbtmspw forum.dlang.org...


 I don't see any reasonable argument to support this view. A critical patch 
 can be very small.


It's an exaggeration, but still usually true.  Most patches take some 
non-trivial work to create and debug, no matter how many lines they end up 
touching.  A patch that only takes a couple of seconds to create does not 
save much time for the person who is going to turn it into a pull request.


 Telling contributors what is worthwhile and fun for them is kinda 
 pointless.


People can do what they wish.  But the best way to contribute is to follow 
the contribution process.


 Besides, if you maintain your own fork you might run into bugs that you 
 have fixed that you don't know how will interact with the main branch. 
 Letting someone else who know the main branch do the final patch based on 
 what you have figured out is a nice gesture.


I suppose. 



 Aug 30 2014



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 8/30/2014 7:37 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:

 "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" " wrote in message
 news:pmrjlrkkaaiguefnqypr forum.dlang.org...


 Here is a good reason: «I have no interest in learning github, and I
 personally don't care if you accept this patch, but here you have it in case
 you want to improve your system».

 Here is another good reason: «Figuring out the D process is waaaay down on my
 todo list, maybe sometime next month, next year, next…»


 If it takes longer to work out how to submit a pull request than make your
 patch, your patch probably wasn't worth doing.



While we of course would prefer that all contributors use github, there is 
another side.

I, of course, use lots of different software products. I often encounter bugs 
(obviously). So what to do about those bugs? When I try to report them, I 
discover far more often than not:

1. the vendor's web site has no mechanism for reporting bugs

2. if there is a mechanism, the vendor throws all sorts of annoying roadblocks 
in first, such as:

a. forcing me to click through their faq
b. having a 'keyhole' text entry box for the bug report (I defeat these by 
composing the bug report elsewhere and then cut&paste it into the keyhole)
c. putting a limit like of 300 characters for the bug report
d. making me create an account in order to submit the report
e. rejecting my bug report because I didn't fill in the form exactly right

3. the vendor will tell me I'm a unique snowflake and nobody else has the 
problems I reported so it won't be fixed, and btw, I should buy their upgrade 
for $75.

It isn't just paid software, try submitting a bug report to Thunderbird Mail.

[One of the most miserable bug reporting systems is the Patent Office's form
for 
submitting prior art. It's hell just trying to figure out how to fill out the 
form correctly, and of course if you do anything wrong it just throws it on the 
floor.]

-----

The end result of all this is I very rarely submit bug reports anymore. If the 
maker makes it hard for me to submit one, I infer they don't want to hear about 
bug reports, so why bother?

(I also cannot recall any vendor actually fixing a bug I reported, EVER, in 30 
years.)

-----

Bottom line is, if someone wants to submit a patch via bugzilla, or even email, 
we should be accommodating, or at least not blow him off. I've often added 
Bugzilla issues for things I've received via email.



 Aug 31 2014



  parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com>  writes:


"Walter Bright"  wrote in message news:ltvuu1$imf$1 digitalmars.com...


 d. making me create an account in order to submit the report


Hmm, this is actually an argument in favour of migrating our issue tracking 
to github, as people are more likely to have an account there.


 The end result of all this is I very rarely submit bug reports anymore. If 
 the maker makes it hard for me to submit one, I infer they don't want to 
 hear about bug reports, so why bother?

 (I also cannot recall any vendor actually fixing a bug I reported, EVER, 
 in 30 years.)


This is my experience too, unless you count Digital Mars =)


 Bottom line is, if someone wants to submit a patch via bugzilla, or even 
 email, we should be accommodating, or at least not blow him off. I've 
 often added Bugzilla issues for things I've received via email.


Generally, patches in bugzilla just rot.  Letting potential contributors 
think their work won't be wasted if they submit it to bugzilla would most 
likely lead to disappointment.

Copy-pasting a bug report into bugzilla is luckily a much less involved 
process than testing, presenting, updating and arguing for a pull request. 



 Sep 01 2014



 next sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On 1 September 2014 17:11, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 "Walter Bright"  wrote in message news:ltvuu1$imf$1 digitalmars.com...



 d. making me create an account in order to submit the report



 Hmm, this is actually an argument in favour of migrating our issue tracking
 to github, as people are more likely to have an account there.



 The end result of all this is I very rarely submit bug reports anymore. If
 the maker makes it hard for me to submit one, I infer they don't want to
 hear about bug reports, so why bother?

 (I also cannot recall any vendor actually fixing a bug I reported, EVER,
 in 30 years.)



 This is my experience too, unless you count Digital Mars =)



 Bottom line is, if someone wants to submit a patch via bugzilla, or even
 email, we should be accommodating, or at least not blow him off. I've often
 added Bugzilla issues for things I've received via email.



 Generally, patches in bugzilla just rot.  Letting potential contributors
 think their work won't be wasted if they submit it to bugzilla would most
 likely lead to disappointment.

 Copy-pasting a bug report into bugzilla is luckily a much less involved
 process than testing, presenting, updating and arguing for a pull request.



People have sent patches / raised bugs directly to me in the past.
Now *that* is rot.  I always forward them onto bugzilla because at
least then it's in a place where:

1) More than one person can read it, and potentially act upon it.
2) Much better todo list than searching through thousands upon
thousands of emails. :)



 Sep 01 2014



 next sibling parent  "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com>  writes:


"Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message 
news:mailman.268.1409589011.5783.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...


 People have sent patches / raised bugs directly to me in the past.
 Now *that* is rot.  I always forward them onto bugzilla because at
 least then it's in a place where:

 1) More than one person can read it, and potentially act upon it.
 2) Much better todo list than searching through thousands upon
 thousands of emails. :)


It's better than nothing, but much worse than a pull request, in terms of 
chance it doesn't rot.

If the only alternative is for the patch to not be attached to the issue at 
all, then submitting a patch is obviously much better. 



 Sep 01 2014



prev sibling  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 9/1/2014 9:30 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 1) More than one person can read it, and potentially act upon it.
 2) Much better todo list than searching through thousands upon
 thousands of emails. :)



The D buglist originally was an email folder on my system. That obviously did 
not scale well :-)



 Sep 01 2014



  parent  Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On 9/1/2014 12:26 PM, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On 9/1/2014 9:30 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 1) More than one person can read it, and potentially act upon it.
 2) Much better todo list than searching through thousands upon
 thousands of emails. :)



 The D buglist originally was an email folder on my system. That
 obviously did not scale well :-)


I think that was the very first thing I fixed when joining the 
community.  What a horrible "system" that was.



 Sep 01 2014



prev sibling  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 9/1/2014 9:11 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:

 "Walter Bright"  wrote in message news:ltvuu1$imf$1 digitalmars.com...


 d. making me create an account in order to submit the report


 Hmm, this is actually an argument in favour of migrating our issue tracking to
 github, as people are more likely to have an account there.


I know we require an account to submit something to bugzilla. The main reason 
for that is to reduce spam. But we don't require an account for the forums, so 
worst case a drive-by bug report can be posted in the forums.



 Bottom line is, if someone wants to submit a patch via bugzilla, or even
 email, we should be accommodating, or at least not blow him off. I've often
 added Bugzilla issues for things I've received via email.


 Generally, patches in bugzilla just rot.  Letting potential contributors think
 their work won't be wasted if they submit it to bugzilla would most likely lead
 to disappointment.


I'm curious what outstanding patches exist in bugzilla. Clearly, we need to
make 
a pass through and check.



 Copy-pasting a bug report into bugzilla is luckily a much less involved process
 than testing, presenting, updating and arguing for a pull request.


Yup.



 Sep 01 2014



  parent  "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Monday, 1 September 2014 at 19:25:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 9/1/2014 9:11 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:

 "Walter Bright"  wrote in message 
 news:ltvuu1$imf$1 digitalmars.com...


 d. making me create an account in order to submit the report


 Hmm, this is actually an argument in favour of migrating our 
 issue tracking to
 github, as people are more likely to have an account there.


 I know we require an account to submit something to bugzilla. 
 The main reason for that is to reduce spam. But we don't 
 require an account for the forums, so worst case a drive-by bug 
 report can be posted in the forums.


And it is actually not that rare to have a bug report in D.learn 
eventually filed to bugzilla by someone else but original poster.



 Sep 01 2014



prev sibling  parent  Bruno Medeiros <bruno.do.medeiros+dng gmail.com>  writes:


On 30/08/2014 15:37, Daniel Murphy wrote:

 "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" " wrote in message
 news:pmrjlrkkaaiguefnqypr forum.dlang.org...


 Here is a good reason: «I have no interest in learning github, and I
 personally don't care if you accept this patch, but here you have it
 in case you want to improve your system».

 Here is another good reason: «Figuring out the D process is waaaay
 down on my todo list, maybe sometime next month, next year, next…»


 If it takes longer to work out how to submit a pull request than make
 your patch, your patch probably wasn't worth doing.


True, but only if you count the time it took to "make your patch" as 
*all* the time of the underlying task (investigating the problem, 
debugging, considering possible solutions, coding a fix, verifying the 
fix, etc.).

-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros



 Sep 03 2014



prev sibling  parent reply "monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:35:52 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:

 On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:32:01 UTC, Daniel Murphy 
 wrote:

 Using github is similar to our requirement to match the code 
 style when submitting patches.  It's non-negotiable, because 
 there's no good reason not to do it.  You just remove those 
 tabs, then get on with it.


 Here is a good reason: «I have no interest in learning github, 
 and I personally don't care if you accept this patch, but here 
 you have it in case you want to improve your system».

 Here is another good reason: «Figuring out the D process is 
 waaaay down on my todo list, maybe sometime next month, next 
 year, next…»


I'm fine with people submitting patches in bugzilla, but they 
need to realize it's not the procedure.

So it's "welcome help", but there's still the actual work that 
needs to be done by someone else: Not only the pull, but the 
review, sticking with the review, etc...

I can also appreciate that filing a bug is work in itself. Doing 
that is already a step most people don't take. We just need to 
meet halfway, and not bitch about it: Both sides have or will 
provide work, and need to realize that about the other.



 Aug 30 2014



  parent  "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:41:08 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:

 So it's "welcome help", but there's still the actual work that 
 needs to be done by someone else: Not only the pull, but the 
 review, sticking with the review, etc...


Sure.


 I can also appreciate that filing a bug is work in itself. 
 Doing that is already a step most people don't take. We just 
 need to meet halfway, and not bitch about it: Both sides have 
 or will provide work, and need to realize that about the other.


I think is better to view it as a stair case. You don't want the 
first step to be steep. By showing gratitude and educating 
potential contributors on the standard procedure perhaps more 
people walk the steps.

Making the first contributions as an attachment to a bug report 
seems like lowering the threshold for contribution. If you don't 
have full confidence in the patch, and think it might be 
slaughtered, then it probably is perceived as less "humiliating" 
to do that then to follow the formal procedure. If it goes 
through, then maybe it will encourage more formal participation 
in the next round.

Contributing through github, if you have no interest/knowledge 
about it, sounds like a major commitment at the first step.

Requiring initial contributors to figuring out a system they have 
no interest in makes the staircase too steep.



 Aug 30 2014



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:32:01 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:

 "Dicebot"  wrote in message 
 news:xovsaqnanmmgaltipuhz forum.dlang.org...


 It is not hard, it is plain unacceptable for certain people. 
 Call that religious reasons.


 Using github is similar to our requirement to match the code 
 style when submitting patches.  It's non-negotiable, because 
 there's no good reason not to do it.  You just remove those 
 tabs, then get on with it.


No it is not. GitHub is an intrusive closed ecosystem and it is 
legitimate concern for anyone caring about the open internet. The 
fact that I have considered D contribution more important than 
this concern and the fact that you consider such reasoning silly 
does not make it less legit and/or widespread. If you don't want 
these contributions - just ignore it, someone else will take 
care. But please avoid this pseudo-pragmatical "non-negotiable" 
bullshit, at least in public.



 Aug 30 2014



 next sibling parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com>  writes:


"Dicebot"  wrote in message news:hvwtyelwvrsrgvbcqsse forum.dlang.org...


 No it is not. GitHub is an intrusive closed ecosystem and it is legitimate 
 concern for anyone caring about the open internet. The fact that I have 
 considered D contribution more important than this concern and the fact 
 that you consider such reasoning silly does not make it less legit and/or 
 widespread.


Making a throwaway github account does not endorse github any more than 
contributing to D another way does. 



 Aug 30 2014



  parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:49:04 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:

 "Dicebot"  wrote in message 
 news:hvwtyelwvrsrgvbcqsse forum.dlang.org...


 No it is not. GitHub is an intrusive closed ecosystem and it 
 is legitimate concern for anyone caring about the open 
 internet. The fact that I have considered D contribution more 
 important than this concern and the fact that you consider 
 such reasoning silly does not make it less legit and/or 
 widespread.


 Making a throwaway github account does not endorse github any 
 more than contributing to D another way does.


Erm, no? It is _exactly_ what is needed for endorsement here. 
Just registering an account is a good enough support for majority 
of the user base. Because that way you help those more actively 
using the service to maintain expectations that there is no world 
outside of it and anyone meaning business must join. This is like 
"Social Ecosystems 101" basics, I am really worried by someone as 
extremely competent as you thinking it doesn't matter.



 Sep 01 2014



  parent  "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com>  writes:


"Dicebot"  wrote in message news:lodvdhwaxjdvjbiksynp forum.dlang.org...


 Erm, no? It is _exactly_ what is needed for endorsement here. Just 
 registering an account is a good enough support for majority of the user 
 base. Because that way you help those more actively using the service to 
 maintain expectations that there is no world outside of it and anyone 
 meaning business must join. This is like "Social Ecosystems 101" basics, I 
 am really worried by someone as extremely competent as you thinking it 
 doesn't matter.


Hey, just because I'm competent in one area doesn't mean I am in others.

And my point was that any contribution to D (hopefully) contributes to D's 
success, which indirectly endorses github. 



 Sep 01 2014



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 8/30/2014 7:37 AM, Dicebot wrote:

 GitHub is an intrusive closed ecosystem and it is legitimate
 concern for anyone caring about the open internet.


How so? The github repositories are mirrored on my machine as git repositories.



 Sep 01 2014



 next sibling parent  ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:52:45 -0700
Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 On 8/30/2014 7:37 AM, Dicebot wrote:

 GitHub is an intrusive closed ecosystem and it is legitimate
 concern for anyone caring about the open internet.


 How so?


"github or GTFO!"



 Sep 01 2014



prev sibling  parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Monday, 1 September 2014 at 22:52:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 8/30/2014 7:37 AM, Dicebot wrote:

 GitHub is an intrusive closed ecosystem and it is legitimate
 concern for anyone caring about the open internet.


 How so? The github repositories are mirrored on my machine as 
 git repositories.


git != GitHub

While you may still clone the repository there is no way to use 
any of advanced / social features without creating GitHub account 
and those features are exactly why it gets used. With no support 
for anonymous / openID input it creates situation where you have 
to chose - go with competitors and lose notable amount of 
community attention or stay with GitHub even if actual 
technological features provided are sub-par. In the end it 
encourages harmful attitude "there is nothing outside the GitHub" 
which of course benefits its owners much more than any actual 
technological advantage.

It is nothing unique for GitHUb I can blame them for though - 
this is how absolute majority of web services is built these days 
and I don't see it changing without any government regulations. 
Does mean I must like it.



 Sep 02 2014



 next sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <bruno.do.medeiros+dng gmail.com>  writes:


On 02/09/2014 08:20, Dicebot wrote:

 While you may still clone the repository there is no way to use any of
 advanced / social features without creating GitHub account and those
 features are exactly why it gets used. With no support for anonymous /
 openID input it creates situation where you have to chose - go with
 competitors and lose notable amount of community attention or stay with
 GitHub even if actual technological features provided are sub-par. In
 the end it encourages harmful attitude "there is nothing outside the
 GitHub" which of course benefits its owners much more than any actual
 technological advantage


GitHub features are sub-par?... To what, Bugzilla?? You must be kidding 
me, Github is way better...

-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros



 Sep 03 2014



  parent  Bruno Medeiros <bruno.do.medeiros+dng gmail.com>  writes:


On 03/09/2014 15:17, Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 On 02/09/2014 08:20, Dicebot wrote:

 While you may still clone the repository there is no way to use any of
 advanced / social features without creating GitHub account and those
 features are exactly why it gets used. With no support for anonymous /
 openID input it creates situation where you have to chose - go with
 competitors and lose notable amount of community attention or stay with
 GitHub even if actual technological features provided are sub-par. In
 the end it encourages harmful attitude "there is nothing outside the
 GitHub" which of course benefits its owners much more than any actual
 technological advantage


 GitHub features are sub-par?... To what, Bugzilla?? You must be kidding
 me, Github is way better...


I have to partially retract this statement. There is some advanced 
functionality that Bugzilla has, that Github-Issues doesn't have (nor 
does it have a decent alternative).
But the core functionality of the Github issue tracking system is still 
way better than the core functionality of Bugzilla, I find.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros



 Sep 18 2014



prev sibling  parent reply "Nameless" <sfdsfs garbagemail.muu>  writes:


On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 07:20:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 On Monday, 1 September 2014 at 22:52:46 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:

 On 8/30/2014 7:37 AM, Dicebot wrote:

 GitHub is an intrusive closed ecosystem and it is legitimate
 concern for anyone caring about the open internet.


 How so? The github repositories are mirrored on my machine as 
 git repositories.


 git != GitHub

 While you may still clone the repository there is no way to use 
 any of advanced / social features without creating GitHub 
 account and those features are exactly why it gets used. With 
 no support for anonymous / openID input it creates situation 
 where you have to chose - go with competitors and lose notable 
 amount of community attention or stay with GitHub even if 
 actual technological features provided are sub-par. In the end 
 it encourages harmful attitude "there is nothing outside the 
 GitHub" which of course benefits its owners much more than any 
 actual technological advantage.

 It is nothing unique for GitHUb I can blame them for though - 
 this is how absolute majority of web services is built these 
 days and I don't see it changing without any government 
 regulations. Does mean I must like it.


Government control would just mean controlled by corruption. The 
solution needs to be technological: a distributed github. I have 
no idea how to do that but I'm sure it's possible. Until 
something like that gets implemented, it seems to me that "github 
or GO" (without the "TF" and with a rationale) is the best 
option. It won't scale to force core contributors to collect 
patches from services x, y and z.



 Sep 05 2014



 next sibling parent  "Nameless" <sifakf fdasfsd.com>  writes:


On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 12:24:02 UTC, Nameless wrote:

 On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 07:20:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 On Monday, 1 September 2014 at 22:52:46 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:

 On 8/30/2014 7:37 AM, Dicebot wrote:

 GitHub is an intrusive closed ecosystem and it is legitimate
 concern for anyone caring about the open internet.


 How so? The github repositories are mirrored on my machine as 
 git repositories.


 git != GitHub

 While you may still clone the repository there is no way to 
 use any of advanced / social features without creating GitHub 
 account and those features are exactly why it gets used. With 
 no support for anonymous / openID input it creates situation 
 where you have to chose - go with competitors and lose notable 
 amount of community attention or stay with GitHub even if 
 actual technological features provided are sub-par. In the end 
 it encourages harmful attitude "there is nothing outside the 
 GitHub" which of course benefits its owners much more than any 
 actual technological advantage.

 It is nothing unique for GitHUb I can blame them for though - 
 this is how absolute majority of web services is built these 
 days and I don't see it changing without any government 
 regulations. Does mean I must like it.


 Government control would just mean controlled by corruption. 
 The solution needs to be technological: a distributed github. I 
 have no idea how to do that but I'm sure it's possible. Until 
 something like that gets implemented, it seems to me that 
 "github or GO" (without the "TF" and with a rationale) is the 
 best option. It won't scale to force core contributors to 
 collect patches from services x, y and z.


Also, I can't imagine anything more "X or GTFO!!!!" than 
government control / state coercion.



 Sep 05 2014



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 12:24:02 UTC, Nameless wrote:

 It is nothing unique for GitHUb I can blame them for though - 
 this is how absolute majority of web services is built these 
 days and I don't see it changing without any government 
 regulations. Does mean I must like it.


 Government control would just mean controlled by corruption. 
 The solution needs to be technological: a distributed github. I 
 have no idea how to do that but I'm sure it's possible. Until 
 something like that gets implemented, it seems to me that 
 "github or GO" (without the "TF" and with a rationale) is the 
 best option. It won't scale to force core contributors to 
 collect patches from services x, y and z.


Decentralized services on their own won't change anything here 
because they won't be able to compete with intrusive ones. 
Concept of ecosystem lock-in didn't become so popular because of 
some evil mastermind behind it - it is simply most efficient and 
advantageous commercial strategy if allowed. This is why I refer 
to government control - situation is not fundamentally different 
from old-school monopolies. It is similarly very effective 
approach you have no reason to not use as a corporation but very 
harmful for society as a whole in the long term -> regulated by 
the government. Of course monopoly regulations don't work that 
well either because of corruption but at least there is some 
expectation among masses about it. Ecosystem lock-in, quite the 
contrary, is viewed as totally legit and even good.



 Sep 05 2014



prev sibling  parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot>  writes:


On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 12:24:02 UTC, Nameless wrote:

 Government control would just mean controlled by corruption. 
 The solution needs to be technological: a distributed github. I 
 have no idea how to do that but I'm sure it's possible.


Examples are Tox and Bittorent Sync.



 Sep 05 2014



  parent  "babu" <ernetst.von.stein gmx.de>  writes:


On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 20:25:34 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 12:24:02 UTC, Nameless wrote:

 Government control would just mean controlled by corruption. 
 The solution needs to be technological: a distributed github. 
 I have no idea how to do that but I'm sure it's possible.


 Examples are Tox and Bittorent Sync.


SF for binaries, they have a good network for this.
GH for sources.



 Sep 05 2014



prev sibling next sibling parent  Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 30/08/14 16:37, Dicebot wrote:


 No it is not. GitHub is an intrusive closed ecosystem and it is
 legitimate concern for anyone caring about the open internet.


There are alternatives. Gitlab for example. It's open source but it has 
commercial interests as well. It's the best alternative I've seen to 
Gitlab, we use it at work, self hosted. Although Github is slightly better.

Note, I'm not advocating for a change.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 02 2014



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Poyeyo" <poyeyo arcadechaser.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:37:29 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:32:01 UTC, Daniel Murphy 
 wrote:

 "Dicebot"  wrote in message 
 news:xovsaqnanmmgaltipuhz forum.dlang.org...


 It is not hard, it is plain unacceptable for certain people. 
 Call that religious reasons.


 Using github is similar to our requirement to match the code 
 style when submitting patches.  It's non-negotiable, because 
 there's no good reason not to do it.  You just remove those 
 tabs, then get on with it.


 No it is not. GitHub is an intrusive closed ecosystem and it is 
 legitimate concern for anyone caring about the open internet. 
 The fact that I have considered D contribution more important 
 than this concern and the fact that you consider such reasoning 
 silly does not make it less legit and/or widespread. If you 
 don't want these contributions - just ignore it, someone else 
 will take care. But please avoid this pseudo-pragmatical 
 "non-negotiable" bullshit, at least in public.


It's easy to install a gogs server and upload all the git
repositories there.

In fact, I do have a gogs server for my private development. It
used to be a GitLab server, until I found about gogs.

GitLab looks and feels like GitHub, just with your own URL. Gogs
has less features (lacks groups and pull requests), but it uses
fewer resources.

Therefore it is possible to get all the technical benefits of
GitHub and none of the political concerns.



 Sep 02 2014



  parent  "Fool" <fool dlang.org>  writes:


On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 19:23:18 UTC, Poyeyo wrote:

 ...and none of the political concerns.


Gogs
A self-hosted Git service written in Go

http://gogs.io/



 Sep 02 2014



prev sibling  parent  Bruno Medeiros <bruno.do.medeiros+dng gmail.com>  writes:


On 30/08/2014 15:37, Dicebot wrote:

 No it is not. GitHub is an intrusive closed ecosystem and it is
 legitimate concern for anyone caring about the open internet. The fact
 that I have considered D contribution more important than this concern
 and the fact that you consider such reasoning silly does not make it
 less legit and/or widespread. If you don't want these contributions -
 just ignore it, someone else will take care. But please avoid this
 pseudo-pragmatical "non-negotiable" bullshit, at least in public


I'd much rather use a closed ecosystem that is better featured, than an 
open one which is sub-par (especially if the data is easily available 
and thus in the future I could easily migrate to another system from the 
closed one, if desired).

But I understand that if one is a Free Software advocate, then one would 
have ethical objections against using a closed ecosystem, no matter what.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros



 Sep 03 2014



prev sibling  parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:32:06 +1000
Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

or just not submitting patches. keep complaining about "alot of people
speaking but not writing the code". good luck with it but i'm off. i'm
perfectly comfortable with supporting patches by myself and applying
'em to my local builds.



 Aug 30 2014



  parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:46:50 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:

 i'm
 perfectly comfortable with supporting patches by myself and 
 applying
 'em to my local builds.


I hope you keep making your patches available online. I am 
interested in your patches that fix the syntax issues that D 
suffer from. I am sure others are too.



 Aug 30 2014



  parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:50:58 +0000
via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 I hope you keep making your patches available online. I am=20
 interested in your patches that fix the syntax issues that D=20
 suffer from. I am sure others are too.


i'm planning to make website with my patches that fixes those "cosmetic
issues" that can't find their way in mainline. using vibe.d, of
course. ;-) i'll publish my build scripts and patchsets on the site and
will keep the site up-to-date. one will be able to choose only the
patches he want.

i'll announce it in 'D.announces' when it will be ready. so don't fear,
no interested person will loose that. ;-)



 Aug 30 2014



  parent  "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 15:03:51 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:

 i'm planning to make website with my patches that fixes those 
 "cosmetic
 issues" that can't find their way in mainline. using vibe.d, of
 course. ;-) i'll publish my build scripts and patchsets on the 
 site and
 will keep the site up-to-date. one will be able to choose only 
 the
 patches he want.


Nice! :-)



 Aug 30 2014



prev sibling  parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:09:02 +1000
Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 I'm yet to hear an actual reason why taking the 5 minutes to create a
 github account is too hard.=20


'cause i don't want to be a part of github. i'd better eat dirt.



 Aug 30 2014



  parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com>  writes:


"ketmar via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message 
news:mailman.120.1409408631.5783.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...


 'cause i don't want to be a part of github. i'd better eat dirt.


It's a shame that your dislike of github is stronger than your desire to 
contribute code. 



 Aug 30 2014



 next sibling parent  "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 14:38:10 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:

 "ketmar via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message 
 news:mailman.120.1409408631.5783.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...


 'cause i don't want to be a part of github. i'd better eat 
 dirt.


 It's a shame that your dislike of github is stronger than your 
 desire to contribute code.


It is a shame that your desire to act smart is stronger than your 
desire to accept contributions.



 Aug 30 2014



prev sibling next sibling parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:38:16 +1000
Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 It's a shame that your dislike of github is stronger than your desire
 to contribute code.=20


i wasn't signed any agreements about "i have to eat github if i want
make D better". i was thinking that having "attach" link is bugzilla
means that i can attach my patch there and someone will look at it
eventually. to make this process faster i announced my patch here
('cause i understand that most people using github and can just plainly
miss bugzilla entry).

yet the first answers i got were "github or GTFO!" note that i wasn't
wrote a single word about "take this patches or they will rot in
bugzilla forever" in my original message. just plain info for those who
interested. ok, i got the point: either "go github" or don't
contribute. i chosing "don't contribute" in this case.

not that i'll stop to fill bugs or something. i will just not try to
provide any fixes/enhancements anymore, even if i did that in my local
copy. only plain "i found the bug, here is testcase" and "it would be
good if compiler/druntime/phobos will do this".



 Aug 30 2014



  parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com>  writes:


"ketmar via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message 
news:mailman.125.1409410701.5783.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...


 yet the first answers i got were "github or GTFO!" note that i wasn't
 wrote a single word about "take this patches or they will rot in
 bugzilla forever" in my original message. just plain info for those who
 interested. ok, i got the point: either "go github" or don't
 contribute. i chosing "don't contribute" in this case.


The choice isn't "github or GTFO", it's just if you don't submit patches on 
github they have a much higher chance of rotting in bugzilla.  Relying on 
others to complete the final steps of the contribution process will always 
be less efficient.  Many patches have rotted in bugzilla over the years, 
including some of my own.


 not that i'll stop to fill bugs or something. i will just not try to
 provide any fixes/enhancements anymore, even if i did that in my local
 copy. only plain "i found the bug, here is testcase" and "it would be
 good if compiler/druntime/phobos will do this".


There is no harm in posting patches with bugzilla issues.  It's just not a 
great way to get them into the upstream repos.  It'd be better still if you 
made pull requests. 



 Aug 30 2014



  parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 15:18:34 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:

 "ketmar via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message 
 news:mailman.125.1409410701.5783.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...


 yet the first answers i got were "github or GTFO!" note that i 
 wasn't
 wrote a single word about "take this patches or they will rot 
 in
 bugzilla forever" in my original message. just plain info for 
 those who
 interested. ok, i got the point: either "go github" or don't
 contribute. i chosing "don't contribute" in this case.


 The choice isn't "github or GTFO", it's just if you don't 
 submit patches on github they have a much higher chance of 
 rotting in bugzilla.  Relying on others to complete the final 
 steps of the contribution process will always be less 
 efficient.  Many patches have rotted in bugzilla over the 
 years, including some of my own.


Exactly. I'm surprised that this has resulted in this much 
discussion. github is how we manage and accept contributions. 
Patches in bugzilla might end up being turned into a PR by 
someone who feels that they want to spend their time submitting 
other peope's patches as PR's on github, but not many developers 
are going to do that. So, if you post patches to bugzilla, the 
odds are high that they will just rot.

Anyone who wants to post patches to bugzilla is free to do so, 
but they should do so with the understanding that that is not how 
we normally manage contributions and that there's a good chance 
that their patch will just sit there and rot.

And I would very much hope that anyone who wanted to contribute 
more than just a patch or two would take the time to set up a 
github account and figure out how to submit PR's rather than 
expect that other developers will spend their time turning those 
patches into PR's and making whatever changes are required when 
the PR's are reviewed. It works far better if the author of the 
changes does that work.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Aug 30 2014



  parent  "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 17:45:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 Patches in bugzilla might end up being turned into a PR by 
 someone who feels that they want to spend their time submitting 
 other peope's patches as PR's on github, but not many 
 developers are going to do that. So, if you post patches to 
 bugzilla, the odds are high that they will just rot.


If those patches actually fix bugs (rather than changing syntax) 
then there is a process problem. For just about any online 
community that is growing the following process is needed:

1. Lower barriers to entry, encourage participation.

2. Provide social rewards for contributions.

3. Retain users by perceived social investments.

One of strongest social validation effects you can get is 
mentoring. Someone "taking you under their wing" and investing in 
you. Someone taking a half-baked patch and turning it into a 
bugfix and giving the contributor positive feedback can address 
2. and 3. above. Very valuable.



 Aug 30 2014



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 05:58:12PM +0300, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]

 yet the first answers i got were "github or GTFO!" note that i wasn't
 wrote a single word about "take this patches or they will rot in
 bugzilla forever" in my original message. just plain info for those
 who interested. ok, i got the point: either "go github" or don't
 contribute. i chosing "don't contribute" in this case.
 
 not that i'll stop to fill bugs or something. i will just not try to
 provide any fixes/enhancements anymore, even if i did that in my local
 copy. only plain "i found the bug, here is testcase" and "it would be
 good if compiler/druntime/phobos will do this".


Please don't stop submitting patches. I'll turn them into PRs.


T

-- 
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and
those who can't.



 Aug 30 2014



  parent reply "David Nadlinger" <code klickverbot.at>  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 15:25:59 UTC, H. S. Teoh via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:

 Please don't stop submitting patches. I'll turn them into PRs.


Even though everything submitted to Bugzilla is supposed to be 
public domain, it would be nice to keep authorship information in 
the commit messages.

Cheers,
David



 Aug 30 2014



 next sibling parent  ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:33:12 +0000
David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 Even though everything submitted to Bugzilla is supposed to be=20
 public domain, it would be nice to keep authorship information in=20
 the commit messages.


in my case -- i don't care. i just keep forgetting "consider that code
as PD/WTFPL" text. ;-)

it's perfectly ok to not mention me in PRs.



 Aug 30 2014



prev sibling  parent  "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <schuetzm gmx.net>  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 16:33:13 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:

 On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 15:25:59 UTC, H. S. Teoh via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:

 Please don't stop submitting patches. I'll turn them into PRs.


 Even though everything submitted to Bugzilla is supposed to be 
 public domain, it would be nice to keep authorship information 
 in the commit messages.


Git distinguishes between author and committer. It can be 
specified when committing:

     git commit --author="N.N. <someone example.com>"



 Aug 30 2014



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On 30/08/14 16:38, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 It's a shame that your dislike of github is stronger than your desire to
 contribute code.


I'm sorry, that won't wash.  It's a given, especially now, that for some
people, 
using these large-scale online social networks is a no-no.  Many of us may view 
the practical benefits as outweighing those factors, but it's not acceptable to 
be dismissive or arrogant in the face of those concerns.

Someone's provided patches.  It takes far less time to whip those up into a PR 
(as H.S. Teoh has done) than to engage in a big debate like this.



 Aug 30 2014



 next sibling parent  Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdan.org>  writes:


Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>
wrote:

 On 30/08/14 16:38, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 It's a shame that your dislike of github is stronger than your desire to
 contribute code.


 
 I'm sorry, that won't wash.  It's a given, especially now, that for some
 people, using these large-scale online social networks is a no-no.  Many
 of us may view the practical benefits as outweighing those factors, but
 it's not acceptable to be dismissive or arrogant in the face of those concerns.
 
 Someone's provided patches.  It takes far less time to whip those up into
 a PR (as H.S. Teoh has done) than to engage in a big debate like this.


I agree. Thank H, S. Teoh. -- Andrei



 Aug 30 2014



prev sibling  parent reply Bruno Medeiros <bruno.do.medeiros+dng gmail.com>  writes:


On 30/08/2014 16:27, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 It's a shame that your dislike of github is stronger than your desire to
 contribute code.


 I'm sorry, that won't wash.  It's a given, especially now, that for some
 people, using these large-scale online social networks is a no-no.


What?? Since when is GitHub an online social network? That's ridiculous..

-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros



 Sep 03 2014



  parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:05:31 +0100
Bruno Medeiros via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 What?? Since when is GitHub an online social network? That's
 ridiculous..


if it looks like a duck...

it is.



 Sep 03 2014



  parent reply Bruno Medeiros <bruno.do.medeiros+dng gmail.com>  writes:


On 03/09/2014 15:22, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:05:31 +0100
 Bruno Medeiros via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 What?? Since when is GitHub an online social network? That's
 ridiculous..


 if it looks like a duck...

 it is.


Github doesn't "quack" or "look like" a social network. (unless you have 
a ridiculous broad definition of "social network": one that would 
encompass anything from forums, IRC, and email accounts)

Github has no notion of friends/contacts/circles like social networks. 
At most you can follow a person, and have followers, but that is a very 
peripheral feature, that as far as I know, not that many people use. 
It's not a *core tenet of Github*, and if it was taken away from the 
site today, I think people would barely notice.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros



 Sep 04 2014



 next sibling parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:33:04 +0100
Bruno Medeiros via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

google://social+coding

first link: github.

it's enough for me.



 Sep 04 2014



  parent reply Bruno Medeiros <bruno.do.medeiros+dng gmail.com>  writes:


On 04/09/2014 16:36, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:33:04 +0100
 Bruno Medeiros via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 google://social+coding

 first link: github.

 it's enough for me.


If it's called a duck, but it doesn't quack like a duck or walk like a 
duck...

-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros



 Sep 05 2014



  parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:09:11 +0100
Bruno Medeiros via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

"social codding" motto was invented by github itself. github positions
itself as social network so who am i to argue?



 Sep 05 2014



  parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=  writes:


On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 11:18:34 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:

 "social codding" motto was invented by github itself. github 
 positions
 itself as social network so who am i to argue?


Well, a «social network» is usually used to refer to 
relationships between people and does not relate to technology, 
although it has been used in that sense too. The term you 
probably are looking for is «social networking service» or 
«online community». Github is an online community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_community



 Sep 05 2014



  parent  ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 11:40:28 +0000
via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 =C2=ABonline community=C2=BB. Github is an online community:


and i can't see any need in "online community" for source code
repositories.

and talking about "developement": github's wiki and tracker are
both crap. they're ok for "me and my cat project", but that's all. yet
it's in trend with "sociality": sub-par services and BS about "being
social".

but why i really hate github is 'cause they daresay me that i *must*
change my password because they failed their security (see "github RoR
scandal"). not "please, change your password 'cause we are shitheads.
sorry for inconvience." no. "you *must* change you password". ok, i got
the point. and i must say that even my employer can't talk to me like
that, not to mention a bunch of shitheads.



 Sep 05 2014



prev sibling  parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot>  writes:


On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 15:33:06 UTC, Bruno Medeiros 
wrote:

 Github doesn't "quack" or "look like" a social network. (unless 
 you have a ridiculous broad definition of "social network": one 
 that would encompass anything from forums, IRC, and email 
 accounts)


It comprises a social network in a sense that every user has his 
own "diary" - a place to store and share his work, and users can 
follow and watch diaries they're interested in, and when they get 
notified on updates in the followed diaries, they instantly go 
there to like, discuss and comment. And - in case of github - 
contribute.



 Sep 04 2014



  parent reply Bruno Medeiros <bruno.do.medeiros+dng gmail.com>  writes:


On 04/09/2014 20:21, Kagamin wrote:

 It comprises a social network in a sense that every user has his own
 "diary" - a place to store and share his work, and users can follow and
 watch diaries they're interested in, and when they get notified on
 updates in the followed diaries, they instantly go there to like,
 discuss and comment. And - in case of github - contribute.


I know that, but in Github its not common for people to follow other 
people. Rather, they follow repositories, or at most, organizations... 
That takes away a lot of the social aspect of it, since it's not people 
you are focused on.
There is also little element of discovering new people through the 
people you already know (although that is technically possible), it's 
not a core competency of Github. At most you discover new repositories 
through the people you follow, but I would reckon even that is not a 
common workflow. Fundamentally the central unit of the network in Github 
is a repository (and perhaps organizations). The people unit is very 
secondary.

Like I said, you can still consider Github to be a social network with a 
very loose definition of what a social network is, but nonetheless, I 
consider it significantly different than 
Facebook/Google+/MySpace/LinkedIn/Twitter/Instagram/tumblr/etc..


-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros



 Sep 05 2014



  parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 14:34:49 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 On 04/09/2014 20:21, Kagamin wrote:

 It comprises a social network in a sense that every user has 
 his own
 "diary" - a place to store and share his work, and users can 
 follow and
 watch diaries they're interested in, and when they get 
 notified on
 updates in the followed diaries, they instantly go there to 
 like,
 discuss and comment. And - in case of github - contribute.


 I know that, but in Github its not common for people to follow 
 other people. Rather, they follow repositories, or at most, 
 organizations... That takes away a lot of the social aspect of 
 it, since it's not people you are focused on.
 There is also little element of discovering new people through 
 the people you already know (although that is technically 
 possible), it's not a core competency of Github. At most you 
 discover new repositories through the people you follow, but I 
 would reckon even that is not a common workflow. Fundamentally 
 the central unit of the network in Github is a repository (and 
 perhaps organizations). The people unit is very secondary.

 Like I said, you can still consider Github to be a social 
 network with a very loose definition of what a social network 
 is, but nonetheless, I consider it significantly different than 
 Facebook/Google+/MySpace/LinkedIn/Twitter/Instagram/tumblr/etc..


It is a social network because it relies on people interaction as 
its most important feature. Without PR discussions / reviews, 
without being able to subscribe to users / repositories and 
without big user base it would not have been that tempting to 
use. You don't go GitHub for its features, you do it for 
potential contributors that can be attracted that way (and won't 
come otherwise). This is a definitive trait of social network.

You seem to interpret "social" aspect very literally here - it is 
not really important if people casually chat and "friend" each 
other. Important thing is that same social processes fuel it as 
ones that were studied in "traditional" social network - large 
user base that generates content for each other and naturally 
encourages each other to stay.



 Sep 05 2014



  parent reply Bruno Medeiros <bruno.do.medeiros+dng gmail.com>  writes:


On 05/09/2014 20:42, Dicebot wrote:

 On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 14:34:49 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 On 04/09/2014 20:21, Kagamin wrote:

 It comprises a social network in a sense that every user has his own
 "diary" - a place to store and share his work, and users can follow and
 watch diaries they're interested in, and when they get notified on
 updates in the followed diaries, they instantly go there to like,
 discuss and comment. And - in case of github - contribute.


 I know that, but in Github its not common for people to follow other
 people. Rather, they follow repositories, or at most, organizations...
 That takes away a lot of the social aspect of it, since it's not
 people you are focused on.
 There is also little element of discovering new people through the
 people you already know (although that is technically possible), it's
 not a core competency of Github. At most you discover new repositories
 through the people you follow, but I would reckon even that is not a
 common workflow. Fundamentally the central unit of the network in
 Github is a repository (and perhaps organizations). The people unit is
 very secondary.

 Like I said, you can still consider Github to be a social network with
 a very loose definition of what a social network is, but nonetheless,
 I consider it significantly different than
 Facebook/Google+/MySpace/LinkedIn/Twitter/Instagram/tumblr/etc..


 It is a social network because it relies on people interaction as its
 most important feature. Without PR discussions / reviews, without being
 able to subscribe to users / repositories and without big user base it
 would not have been that tempting to use. You don't go GitHub for its
 features, you do it for potential contributors that can be attracted
 that way (and won't come otherwise). This is a definitive trait of
 social network.

 You seem to interpret "social" aspect very literally here - it is not
 really important if people casually chat and "friend" each other.
 Important thing is that same social processes fuel it as ones that were
 studied in "traditional" social network - large user base that generates
 content for each other and naturally encourages each other to stay.


I went to the great oracle (Wikipedia) to clarify what is the more 
formal and proper term for this. Fair enough, indeed the likes of 
Facebook/Google+/MySpace/LinkedIn/Twitter/Instagram/tumblr/etc. are more 
precisely called "online social networking services".

So ok, I concede that Github can be called a "social network". Although 
under that interpretation so is any web forum or bulletin board that has 
more than a handful of people communicating. (Personally I would still 
prefer avoiding that term.)

I change my point to say that Github is not a "social networking 
service" then.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros



 Sep 18 2014



 next sibling parent  "Cliff" <cliff.s.hudson gmail.com>  writes:


I feel like this whole thread's diversion onto the relative
merits of GitHub is pretty pointless.  Would it be difficult to
write a small automation tool that users could run (maybe
distributed as part of the DMD package or something) that lets
them submit patches/PRs mostly automatically?  Or have a process
which scans Bugzilla and produces such things automatically?  I
know I am not totally up on the infrastructure capabilities, but
lowering the barrier to entry is almost always a good thing, and
the religious arguments can be saved for alt.github.die.die.die
or something.



 Sep 18 2014



prev sibling  parent  "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Thursday, 18 September 2014 at 16:35:10 UTC, Bruno Medeiros 
wrote:

 I went to the great oracle (Wikipedia) to clarify what is the 
 more formal and proper term for this. Fair enough, indeed the 
 likes of 
 Facebook/Google+/MySpace/LinkedIn/Twitter/Instagram/tumblr/etc. 
 are more precisely called "online social networking services".

 So ok, I concede that Github can be called a "social network". 
 Although under that interpretation so is any web forum or 
 bulletin board that has more than a handful of people 
 communicating. (Personally I would still prefer avoiding that 
 term.)


It can and should be called as such. At least as far as I am 
familiar with this domain "social network" term belongs more to 
sociology than to webdev / technology. It as a useful term to 
have exactly because it implies certain human behavior patterns 
and how those can be used for business purpose, whatever exact 
application domain you have.


 I change my point to say that Github is not a "social 
 networking service" then.


Sure, I have never pretended it is.



 Sep 19 2014



prev sibling  parent reply Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On 30 August 2014 16:27, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On 30/08/14 16:38, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 It's a shame that your dislike of github is stronger than your desire to
 contribute code.



 I'm sorry, that won't wash.  It's a given, especially now, that for some
 people, using these large-scale online social networks is a no-no.  Many of
 us may view the practical benefits as outweighing those factors, but it's
 not acceptable to be dismissive or arrogant in the face of those concerns.


Agreed.  I had some reluctance to join github to begin with, but
eventually conceded as being on github may help exposure and encourage
people to contribute.  In all honesty though, I can't say that there
has really been any increase in external contribution vs
bitbucket/sourceforge, so whatever benefits dmd or ldc got did not
seem to carry over to gdc.

The only change I have noticed as being part of github is a steady
stream of monthly emails and phone calls (voice messages, I never
answer them), be it universities conducting a study, or recruiters
looking to interview me because they came across my profile.
Sometimes its annoying, but reluctantly accepted as one of the perks
of being on a social site.

Iain.



 Aug 31 2014



  parent  "monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com>  writes:


On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 15:33:45 UTC, Iain Buclaw via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:

 The only change I have noticed as being part of github is a 
 steady
 stream of monthly emails and phone calls (voice messages, I 
 never
 answer them), be it universities conducting a study, or 
 recruiters
 looking to interview me because they came across my profile.
 Sometimes its annoying, but reluctantly accepted as one of the 
 perks
 of being on a social site.

 Iain.


I've never gotten calls (I didn't give my number). I have been 
asked to participate in 1 or 2 studies though.

I've also been contacted by a recruiter, but it got me an awesome 
sweet new job, so that's a perk, arguably.

I was also later contacted by another recruiter for the same 
company. So that was kind of ego boosting.



 Aug 31 2014



prev sibling  parent reply Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On 30 Aug 2014 15:07, "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 01:40:49PM +0000, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 I agree with Iain, we should respect opinion of people trying to stay
 away from intrusive ecosystems like GitHub. While probability of
 someone picking the patches and proceeding with them is low (and we
 shouldn't give false hopes) there is no place for "GitHub or GTFO"
 reaction. It is just rude.


 I can't believe you people would waste hours on a useless discussion,
 when it takes just 5 minutes to generate PR's from the OP's patches:

         https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/939
         https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2475

 Seriously, we forum people need to get a perspective sometimes.
 *grumble* *grumble*


I'm stuck on a phone for the time being.  Otherwise I'd have done the
honours this morning, followed by a 'Thanks for your contribution and for
helping make D better'.

Iain.



 Aug 30 2014



  parent  Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 8/30/2014 8:56 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 'Thanks for your contribution and for helping make D
 better'.


This is what our attitude must be.



 Aug 31 2014



prev sibling  parent reply "Tourist" <gravatar gravatar.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 10:57:51 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:

 Hello.

 there are some c-style array declarations both in druntime and 
 in
 phobos. i made two patches that fixes 'em:

 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13401
 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13402


Don't want to register on GitHub?
Just use those:
Username: d-random-contributor
Password: d-random-contributor-password



 Sep 02 2014



 next sibling parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 07:11:03 UTC, Tourist wrote:

 On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 10:57:51 UTC, ketmar via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:



 Don't want to register on GitHub?
 Just use those:
 Username: d-random-contributor
 Password: d-random-contributor-password


Thanks. I was thinking about that but that will make the 
copyright a bit problematic, I think. How could you prove the 
right for some code and trace back, if needed, to the original 
author?

Anyway, it is a good step.



 Sep 02 2014



  parent  "eles" <eles eles.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 07:16:14 UTC, eles wrote:

 On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 07:11:03 UTC, Tourist wrote:

 On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 10:57:51 UTC, ketmar via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:





 Thanks. I was thinking about that but that will make the 
 copyright a bit problematic, I think. How could you prove the 
 right for some code and trace back, if needed, to the original 
 author?


I mean, you accept the GitHub license and T and C when you create
the account, not every time you (or someone else) logs in.



 Sep 02 2014



prev sibling next sibling parent  Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 9/2/2014 12:11 AM, Tourist wrote:

 On Saturday, 30 August 2014 at 10:57:51 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 Hello.

 there are some c-style array declarations both in druntime and in
 phobos. i made two patches that fixes 'em:

 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13401
 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13402


 Don't want to register on GitHub?
 Just use those:
 Username: d-random-contributor
 Password: d-random-contributor-password


For significant patches to D, we'll need more than an anonymous account, in
case 
there's any legal question about where the code came from.

This is not necessary for submitting bug reports or participating in
discussions 
and reviews.



 Sep 02 2014



prev sibling  parent  "Kagamin" <spam here.lot>  writes:


On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 07:11:03 UTC, Tourist wrote:

 Don't want to register on GitHub?
 Just use those:
 Username: d-random-contributor
 Password: d-random-contributor-password


Now, this is what I call "OpenID" :)



 Sep 04 2014