D Programming Language source (dmd, phobos, etc.) has moved to github

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:34:18 -0500, Johannes Pfau <spam at example.com> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:00:21 -0500, Johannes Pfau <spam at example.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> David Wang wrote:
>>>>> Dear Walter,
>>>>>
>>>>> I went to the github and try to download the source, I found that
>>>>> the latest version on github is the old version.
>>>>>
>>>>> for example:
>>>>>
>>>>> druntime - Downloads: dmd-2.042
>>>>> Phobos -   Downloads: phobos-2.046
>>>>> DMD -      Downloads: dmd-2.046
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the actural latest version of D should be 2.051.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why github can not showing the 2.051 version(dmd, phobos,
>>>>> druntime, and so on.) ?
>>>>
>>>> I think it is because the tags were never done properly on svn,
>>>> either.
>>>
>>> It's still possible to add the tags (see
>>> http://progit.org/book/ch2-6.html "Tagging Later") but we'd have to
>>> know the commits used for the releases. I guess there's
>>> no easy way to figure out which commits were used for the releases?
>>>
>>
>> All source is included in the compiler.  It's simply a matter of doing
>> a directory compare of the code against source control.  The date
>> released should narrow it down to a manageable level.
>>
>> I have done it in the past
>> (http://www.dsource.org/projects/druntime/changeset/272)  In fact, it
>> looks like I was the last one to tag druntime :)
>>
>> Some script-fu could probably fill in all the holes automatically...
>>
>> -Steve
>
> OK, here are some revisions:
> DMD:
> 2.051 seems to be revision 1374ba96fa5516d9595fa61b09015197a8b84385
>   Note: The changelog on the website says release date Nov 7 but it's
>   more like 20th December.

That is probably a doc bug.  When creating the 'next' version in the  
changelog, Walter arbitrarily puts a date in there as a placeholder  
(usually the date he does that), and looks like he forgot to change it.   
Probably we should get into the practice of putting TBD instead of a date.

>   Note2: The git repository contains a object.h file in that revision
>   which isn't in the dmd zip.
> 2.050 50fb3d60811b203ac50a0d9169bf15a28881c9b5
>   Note: The git repository contains a argtypes.c file in that revision
>   which isn't in the dmd zip.
> 2.049 ab38d58ecb78924d631f7f77863fff2a6c234eb6
> 2.048 bcf720fe079fd979fa9e81f63ab2de3dde9284dc
> 2.047 ad4ae4a4fd3dbdb591ebc288378a7200d2ed6d48
>   Note: In the dmd zip, there are 7 additional lines in
>   root/root.c. Those were later added to the repository, but
>   ad4ae4a4fd3dbdb591ebc288378a7200d2ed6d48 seems to be the correct
>   commit.

At this point, I would say, tag those versions.  Its very unlikely that  
someone ever needs one of these old revs anyways.  I'm glad you were able  
to do all this work, thanks!

-Steve