DVM - D Version Manager 0.4.0

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-01-08 21:34, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jacob Carlborg"<doob at me.com>  wrote in message
> news:jec1j6$2rbu$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>
>> Ideally it should come before other new features. I mean, the more stuff
>> we put in there the more mess it will be. The point of the refactoring is
>> of course to make it easier to add new features and to understand the
>> code.
>
> Yea, that makes sense. I guess I just wasn't sure how "deep" the refactoring
> you were envisioning was going to be.

Quite deep. I want to have it look more like Orbit: 
https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/orbit

Instead of having all code in the commands I want to have a single class 
for a single task. The commands would then basically just create a new 
instance of the needed classes.

> Something possibly releated I've been meaning to bring up: I've been
> thinking that DVM's commands and options should work more like, say, git or
> svn. By that I mean: Right now DVM has a set of commands, and a set of
> "global" DVM options. Problem is, some of the options only apply to some of
> the commands. This sugegsts a few changes:
>
> 1. "dvm --help" should only show globally-applicable options. (--verbose
> and --help are probably only ones right now.)
>
> 2. "dvm [command] --help" (and maybe "dvm --help [command]", too) should
> show a command-specific help screen.
>
> This isn't a *huge* need right now, but I think it'll only become more and
> more important as DVM progresses. I don't know if this is something that
> should be taken into account in the refactoring, or just left until after.

Yeah, I know. That would be another reason to do the refactoring.

> Another thing that might need to be considered in the refactoring: On Linux,
> DVM doesn't currently work inside a shell script. It's just not recognized.
> I'm sure it probably has something to do with the "dvm" shell-function.
> Maybe it's because it's set to only be defined on interactive prompts? I
> don't really know for certain what the problem or the solution is, so
> depending on whatever the "right" solution is, this might be a "take into
> account in the refactoring" matter.

I didn't know about that. I'll take a look at that.

>> About the refactoring, what to you think about these:
>>
>> * Move to git
>
> I don't have a really strong opinion on that. While I kind of like Hg a
> little better, I normally use the Tortoise tools, and I like TortoiseGit
> much better than TortoiseHg. Also branching is built into Git rather than
> being a grafted-on extra, which is nice. (And of course, DVM goes
> hand-in-hand with DMD and DMD is Git). So I guess I would lean more towards
> Git, but either way works.

I've moved all my projects to git, use it at work, so I prefer it over 
mercurial.

>> * Move to github
>
> It's ultimately up to you, but personally I can't stand Github. My vote
> would be to stick with Bitbucket.
>
> Granted, I haven't actually tried Bitbucket's Git support yet. But just
> yesterday I started the process of converting a couple of my projects from
> SVN/Dsource to Git/Bitbucket, so we'll see how it goes, and I'll let you
> know.

I'm asking you since you're the main contributor next to me. I prefer 
Github, many D project are moving to Github, DMD, Phobos and druntime 
are already there. But certainly don't want to push you away, that 
wouldn't be good for the Windows port :)

>> * Port to D2, still using Tango
>>
>
> I'm definitely in favor of switching to D2. In fact, I took the leap from
> D1/Tango straight to D2/Phobos on my own projects about a year or so ago, so
> I have some experience in that (and D2's only gotten better since), and I'd
> be happy to take the lead converting it to D2. I found that the vast
> majority of changes I needed to make were Tango->Phobos because, while there
> are some breaking changes from D1->D2, most of the changes are additive, and
> D1-style code works fine in D2 with only very little change.
>
> As far as Tango: I have no idea what the state of D2's Tango is, and
> personally I'd prefer Phobos. But if you have reason to believe D2's Tango
> is ready to use and you'd prefer that, then I'm perfectly fine with it.
> Actually, heck, if we're going to switch to D2, we may as well at least give
> D2's Tango a try along the way. If it works, it works, if it doesn't we can
> help out D2's Tango or just do Phobos (especially since 2.058 will have that
> new curl module).

I'm pretty sure Tango for D2 is ready enough. I got help porting my 
package manager, Orbit, to D2 using Tango. Everything compiles but not 
everything works, probably something D2 and Ruby related (TLS or 
something like that). But it was surprisingly few changes that needed to 
be done and that is all to Tango working with D2. The biggest problem 
would be to port the tool to use Phobos instead of Tango.

I guess it would be best to start by adding some high level tests to 
DVM. You probably won't like this but there's a great Ruby tool for 
testing these kind of things called Cucumber. I'm already using it in 
Orbit: https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/orbit/tree/master/features

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg