Moving druntime into the DMD repository

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, July 27, 2018 5:03:50 AM MDT Seb via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> What do you think?
> ------------------
>
> - Has the dmd/druntime split being annoying you too?
> - Do you have a better suggestion?
> - Would this break your workflow in a drastic way?

It would break all existing tools and scripts that are used to build the
existing repos - many of which are not official tools. So, yes, it would be
very annoying. That's not necessarily a good enough reason not to do it, but
IMHO, it really needs to provide solid benefits to rearrange things like
that for it to be worth breaking all of the existing tools that anyone uses
for building dmd, druntime, and Phobos.

It also arguably makes no sense in that a lot of what's in druntime has
nothing to do with dmd - e.g. all of the OS C bindings are in there. There
are also several modules that need to be in druntime, because druntime uses
them but don't really have much to do with the compiler (e.g. core.time and
core.thread). And not only from a code organizational standpoint does the
current separation make a lot of sense for a lot of what's in druntime, but
it also matters from the standpoint of who has permissions to do what. Right
now, it's reasonable to give privileges to folks to merge PRs for druntime
who have no business merging PRs for dmd. If the repos are merged, then
we're forced to either give some of those folks dmd merge rights or make the
smaller pool of folks who have merge rights for dmd deal with those PRs.

Also, given that druntime gets linked into Phobos, having that repo be part
of the compiler is that much weirder. In that sense, it belongs more with
Phobos than dmd.

The dependencies between the three repos do occasionally cause problems, but
overall, I think that the separation makes a lot of sense.

- Jonathan M Davis