We are forking D

[H. S. Teoh]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 05:21:26PM +0000, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 January 2024 at 15:40:55 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:
[...]
> > My impression so far is that the openD fork may diverge too far from
> > dmd to be able to merge changes upstream. They've already changed
> > the layout of the repositories - combining phobos and ldc into the
> > compiler one.  Maybe my git knowledge is not perfect, but it seems
> > to have made merging openD changes back into dmd much more awkward.

Adam merged the repos for ease of management.  As far as the code itself
is concerned, he's generally taking the more conservative approach of
not breaking things deliberately unless there's a good reason to.  Of
course, this will eventually lead to irreconciliable divergence from
upstream, but it won't happen overnight.  The plan is to stay close to D
as much as possible.


> It's hard to say at this point. A fork doesn't have to diverge
> terribly far from upstream. This fork would be quite helpful if it
> provided a way to experiment with new ideas that could be merged
> upstream - something that doesn't happen enough now.

Judging from the responses to this thread, it seems clear that the
current upstream team is not interested in changing their direction.
Which means that merging features back from the fork is probably not
going to happen, since these features generally would be those that
upstream has rejected.  So I'm not holding my breath.

The best that could happen in this scenario is that upstream would
borrow ideas from the fork, but would write their own implementation,
possibly with changes to suit their taste.  It doesn't seem very likely
that code from the fork would be adopted as-is by upstream.


T

-- 
PENTIUM = Produces Erroneous Numbers Thru Incorrect Understanding of Mathematics