State of LDC

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 11-11-2011 21:06, David Nadlinger wrote:
> [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…

It was bioinfornatics, IIRC. He also did talk about this on IRC.

>
>> 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

I still think it would be great if we could unify it under the DPL org. 
To a newcomer, the current state of things must look like there's a 
pretty fragmented community...

- Alex