Biggest Issue with D - Definition and Versioning

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 1/13/12 1:16 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
> On 13/01/12 3:05 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 1/13/12 12:08 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> You've said to post bugs, but these don't receive any attention. For
>>>> example,
>>>> here's two bugs about the lack of documentation on .stringof, one from
>>>> 2009 and
>>>> one from early 2011:
>>>>
>>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3007
>>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5404
>>>>
>>>> Neither of which have received any comments or clarifications.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry about that, but I'm running as fast as I can, along with the
>>> help of a number of prolific contributors. As you can see by the
>>> changelog, there are a zillion issues that do get resolved every month.
>>
>> One important metric we currently neglect is the date of the oldest bug
>> or pull request. If we work on improving that with each release, we give
>> a submitter confidence that their bug will be resolved in reasonable
>> time. A simple policy like "address the oldest 3 bugzilla entries in
>> each release" would be very healthy.
>
> Yes, this would be very good, although I suspect we would quickly hit
> roadblock bugs, i.e. ones that require a massive amount of work (e.g.
> 64-bit Windows support) or those that require fundamental changes to the
> language and require extra consideration (e.g. const postblit).

I understand. Such issues are not appropriate for bugzilla and should be 
best filed as language feature requests and directions to pursue. We 
need to make progress in managing the age of the oldest bug.

IMHO, fixing const postblit (and the last mile of const) an immediate 
issue, followed by shared and threads. In light of that, working on simd 
now appears even more like a waste of time.


Andrei