• Andrej Mitrovic (12/12) May 28 2011 First time killed in June 2010 by Andrei Alexandrescu:
• Walter Bright (2/6) May 28 2011 Ok, I zapped it with prejudice.
• Brad Roberts (2/9) May 28 2011 By changing your build process to start with an empty directory for each...
• Walter Bright (2/11) May 29 2011 Nope. Simply deleted it.
• Brad Roberts (4/17) May 29 2011 You really ought to rework your build/release process to deal with an em...
• Andrei Alexandrescu (8/25) May 29 2011 I agree... and I'm glad we're at a point in history where continuing to

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

First time killed in June 2010 by Andrei Alexandrescu:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/announce/dmd_1.062_and_2.047_release_18676.html#N18678

But openrj doesn't go down without a fight!

Another brave attempt at putting the beast to its misery, this time by
Sean Kelly in late December 2010:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/std.openrj_125471.html

But openrj strikes back and survives!

I say we nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Btw, I think I know what's going on. Even though it's not in the repo,
it's still distributed in the zip file (it's in 2.053 and every
earlier release). So someone who is packing the zip file must be
including the module by accident.

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 5/28/2011 8:11 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 Btw, I think I know what's going on. Even though it's not in the repo,
 it's still distributed in the zip file (it's in 2.053 and every
 earlier release). So someone who is packing the zip file must be
 including the module by accident.

Ok, I zapped it with prejudice.

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

On 5/28/2011 11:36 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 5/28/2011 8:11 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 Btw, I think I know what's going on. Even though it's not in the repo,
 it's still distributed in the zip file (it's in 2.053 and every
 earlier release). So someone who is packing the zip file must be
 including the module by accident.

 
 Ok, I zapped it with prejudice.

By changing your build process to start with an empty directory for each
release?

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 5/28/2011 11:45 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
 On 5/28/2011 11:36 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 5/28/2011 8:11 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 Btw, I think I know what's going on. Even though it's not in the repo,
 it's still distributed in the zip file (it's in 2.053 and every
 earlier release). So someone who is packing the zip file must be
 including the module by accident.

 Ok, I zapped it with prejudice.

 By changing your build process to start with an empty directory for each
release?

Nope. Simply deleted it.

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

On 5/29/2011 12:11 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 5/28/2011 11:45 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
 On 5/28/2011 11:36 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 5/28/2011 8:11 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 Btw, I think I know what's going on. Even though it's not in the repo,
 it's still distributed in the zip file (it's in 2.053 and every
 earlier release). So someone who is packing the zip file must be
 including the module by accident.

 Ok, I zapped it with prejudice.

 By changing your build process to start with an empty directory for each
release?

 
 Nope. Simply deleted it.

You really ought to rework your build/release process to deal with an empty
starting point.  It's far more repeatable
and reliable.  This sort of problem will happen every time a file is removed or
renamed.  As history has shown more than
once. :)

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

On 5/29/11 2:18 AM, Brad Roberts wrote:
 On 5/29/2011 12:11 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 5/28/2011 11:45 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
 On 5/28/2011 11:36 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 5/28/2011 8:11 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 Btw, I think I know what's going on. Even though it's not in the repo,
 it's still distributed in the zip file (it's in 2.053 and every
 earlier release). So someone who is packing the zip file must be
 including the module by accident.

 Ok, I zapped it with prejudice.

 By changing your build process to start with an empty directory for each
release?

 Nope. Simply deleted it.

 You really ought to rework your build/release process to deal with an empty
starting point.  It's far more repeatable
 and reliable.  This sort of problem will happen every time a file is removed
or renamed.  As history has shown more than
 once. :)

I agree... and I'm glad we're at a point in history where continuing to 
improve our teamwork and deployment practices becomes vital. Speaking of 
which, it would be great if pull requests enjoyed a larger 
participation. Pull request authors are very important to the future of 
D, and improving the time to acceptance would work greatly towards 
encouraging them and towards attracting others.


Andrei