State of LDC

[David Nadlinger]

[I can only speak for myself as a contributor to LDC, other devs might 
have other opinions]

On 11/11/11 7:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 11/11/2011 5:43 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:
>>> This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC was
>>> dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which
>>> hasn't been updated since July.
>>
>> Come to think of it, I don't think it was announced anywhere but on
>> IRC.

It originally wasn't announced on the NG because the move was not yet 
complete, but then, progress in that regard somewhat stalled, leading to 
the awkward situation we are having now. This definitely needs 
improvement asap, I'll see what I can do over the next few days.

>> There was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be
>> hosted under
>> the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn't get much of any attention...).
>
> I hadn't noticed that request.

I only barely remember something related as well – I don't think it was 
actually a LDC committer asking…

> I don't know if it is a good idea or not to put it under
> d-programming-language. One issue is it might run out of space for the
> free version :-) Another might be the implication of who is in charge of
> it.

I don't know if it's a good idea either. Historically, so to say, LDC 
was always a separate project, and some of the reasons for that 
certainly don't apply any longer. On the one hand, it would certainly 
make it easier for people to find the project, and since LDC uses the 
official frontend, it's probably not even that bad of a fit.

On the other hand, though, I have to admit (nolens volens), that LDC is 
usually less well maintained than DMD and Phobos, and as such, it might 
not be the best idea to include it in the official organization. 
Furthermore, having it as a separate organization probably fits the 
usual GitHub collaboration model better, since we can have our own 
druntime/Phobos forks – intra-repo pull requests are perfectly possible, 
but blurring the line between what's actively developed DMD and what's 
release-tracking LDC stuff could be bad.

> Anyhow, may I make a suggestion? I tried to make a deimos project under
> github, but that was taken. So instead, I thought of
> d-programming-deimos, which seems perfect. Can I suggest renaming
> ldc-developers to d-programming-ldc? I think that would help tie the D
> related projects together.
>
> Right now, someone looking at "ldc-developers" would have no idea it is
> related to D.
>
> Prefixing D projects with "d-programming" would help out with brand
> visibility.

When we started the move to GitHub, I tried to create an »ldc« org, but 
it was already taken. The best alternative we could come up with on IRC 
was ldc-developers, which we then decided to use.

Regarding d-programming-ldc, I am not much sure if it would really 
change anything, but if it is generally agreed on, fine with me. Not 
having formally announced the move could actually come in handy here, 
since the only thing that depends on the path (besides quite a number of 
local user repos) is probably the Fedora packaging script.

In any case, I think the most important thing here is to reach consensus 
as fast as possible here, so that we can restore LDC into a state where 
it isn't vastly undersold simply because of one or two days of 
documentation/publicity work…

David