Request for Review: DI Generation Improvements

[Adam Wilson]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 05:46:44 -0700, Steven Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 May 2012 05:51:44 -0400, kenji hara <k.hara.pg at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> Old days import/core/thread.di was generated from src/core/thread.d .
>> Current import/core/thread.di is generated from src/core/thread.*di* .
>
> Huh?  Why the copy?  Just move src/core/thread.di to  
> import/core/thread.di
>
> object.di lives in import/core, I think it should be the same for all  
> the hand-maintained .di files.

Actually, object.di lives /import. Moving thread.di to /import/core would  
require a significant change to the clean targets of both makefiles since  
they just rm the whole /import/core directory at the moment. It's not  
impossible and if you guys agree that the change should be made I'd be  
happy to make it happen.

> FWIW, I thought thread.di was being generated because of this.
>
> Also, I agree that thread and object are the only modules that need to  
> be .di files.  Everything else is already opaque for the most part, and  
> the pieces that aren't are just supporting code that can be visible.
>
> What we need to protect is the runtime implementation, so projects  
> cannot depend on private APIs that may change.
>
> -Steve

The biggest problem right now is that, while we all agree that these  
changes need to happen, getting them merged appears to be nigh impossible.  
There appears to be a bottleneck in the process caused by the lack of  
capable persons to verify and execute the merges, particularly for  
druntime. There are 11 passing merges for the druntime at last count, out  
of 28 total. Alexrp and dawgfoto particularly seem to have a lot of pulls  
that are just languishing.

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/