Proposal : aggregated dlang git repository

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 2/9/15 11:49 PM, Mathias LANG wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 February 2015 at 06:22:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>> Well I have to say something.
>>
>> This proposal is a good example of a cultural lore we should unlearn:
>> high-churn, low-impact changes.
>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/896 is
>> another example. Meaning changes with a large surface that rewire vast
>> areas, yet result in only dingy improvements.
>
> I was quite surprised with your post, as you seemed on board with this
> idea last year (https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11792).

I still am. I think the result of the investigation should be a good 
analysis of the pros and cons. I don't see that, but instead a push to 
just do it with an unclear vision of the resulting setup.

>> Why? Why are so many of us dedicating so much energy to tweaking what
>> already works, instead of tackling real problems? Problems that e.g. -
>> pardon my being pedantic - are in the vision document?
>>
>
> We do have a strong syndrome of NIH in this community, but I don't think
> it's the issue here.
> You mentionned in a thread the vision documentation was stuff you and
> Walter were working on, rather than "TODO list" for contributors.
> I think what we need ATM is not a vision, but milestones. What's
> outlined in the doc has little value for someone who wants to contribute.

I'd agree NIH has nothing to do with this discussion. Probably 
insufficient empowerment does. We have many talented contributors but we 
don't give them enough trust to let them embark on really big things. So 
they spin their wheels on dingy little things that can be easily argued, 
can be done relatively easily, and are unlikely to be rejected. We must 
break this pattern.

> IMO the agenda ( horribly outdated: http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda ) is
> more important than the vision if you want people to work on a specific
> area.

I've asked Martin whether we should remove it.

> You'll measure success more effectively if you are able to quantify (and
> consequently, tell you you're done with) a task. I don't see any of the
> points mentionned in the vision document as something that can be
> "ticked off". Beside "Create a D Language Foundation", but I can't do it
> myself.

"All of Phobos or these particular modules are @nogc." "D is safe". etc.


Andrei