Dub and '1.2.3' type version tags

FeepingCreature feepingcreature at gmail.com
Tue Nov 26 07:23:08 UTC 2019

On Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 04:16:39 UTC, mipri wrote:
> Of the requirement itself, I wouldn't mind either way. What's
> more important to me is that dub be actively maintained. On
> balance, between "tools (what tools?) become slightly more
> inconsistent for a while" or "dub doesn't get important updates
> because people see that even trivial updates like this one
> can't get done", I want the important updates.

I think a large part of the problem is that dub is effectively 
unmaintained. To be honest, as soon as I saw one person 
disagreeing I groaned and thought to myself "great, I'll never 
get this in now." My impression is that as things stand, dub is 
in "maintenance mode" - which effectively means that dub changes 
can only be merged in the presence of perfect consensus. Who has 
responsibility over dub? Who "owns" the code? Who can decide what 
goes in and what stays out in the absence of perfect agreement? 
Who can we appeal to with our usecases? By my impression, there 
is no such person, and this presents a severe flaw in the D 

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list