Proposal : aggregated dlang git repository

[anonymous via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 10 February 2015 at 06:22:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> 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.
>
> The main problem with these is they're easy to argue in favor 
> of. Yes, an aggregate repository will make certain things 
> easier. I'm unclear on the relative advantages and 
> disadvantages, but I have no doubt Dicebot has some good 
> arguments loaded already. On that pull request, yes, searching 
> the language definition separately is a nice thing to have.
>
> Yet, even after executing e.g. the unified repository to 
> perfection and after everything was said and done, we're 
> like... how much better than we were? What pain points did we 
> fix? What is the impact?
>
> Probably something that's neither important nor urgent.
>
> Yet we do have matters that are important and urgent. We want 
> to improve Phobos' take on memory allocation. Yet not one soul 
> is working on RefCounted. Few know even what needs to be done 
> of it. 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?
>
> Don't get me wrong. It's quite likely a unified repo would be 
> nice. As would be a separate directory for the language 
> definition. But it's just not what we should be on right now.
>
> This culture of riding the stationary bike faster and faster 
> must change. We must hop on the real bike and get to pedaling.

I'm the author of that pull request. So I guess maybe I should 
respond to this.

I understand that it's a pretty large, rather dull change. If 
everyone's busy with more important things and therefore can't 
review that monster, then that's how it is.

But I think it's not fair to ask me to work on RefCounted (or 
whatever) instead. I'm not a major contributor. With the recent 
focus on the website, I've become more active, but only in that 
specific area. I can see that reviewer time may be better spent 
elsewhere. My time, however, wouldn't necessarily be spent on 
other things D if not on the website. I've kinda slipped into 
spending more time on it that I'd like to. Doing a little web 
stuff again has been fun, but when I'm out of ideas for the 
website, it's probably going to be the occasional (simple) bug 
fix again.

Also, improving the website is part of The Vision, no? "We aim to 
improve the brand of the D programming language. Part of that is 
raising the quality of all D-related materials: website, [...], 
etc."