Lieutenant needed: build and release process

[Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d]

On 9/9/2014 6:54 AM, Dragos Carp via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 at 12:31:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> Also it sounds as if you think that someone actually does any
>> coordination about what must go into release. As far as I am aware
>> there is no such thing, even http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda is just a
>> convention. Currently releases are based exclusively on a time frame +
>> regression list (all that was in master goes to the release branch and
>> is kept there until known regressions are fixed, repeat for the next
>> cycle).
>
> Are you satisfied with the current process?
>
> Let me summarize some important drawbacks of the current workflow:
>
> 1. No clear defined deadline for preparing a merge-able PR.
>
> 2. Unorganized PR merge campaigns. The people merging the PR are doing a
> great job, but they do this triggered by arbitrary events: too many open
> PRs, a cool new PR appears, somebody poke them on forum, or simply have
> some time for this kind of work.
>
> 3. Somehow arbitrary merge criteria. Having a defined merge window, when
> some people do just PR merges, will implicitly produce more predictable
> and uniform acceptance criteria.
>
> 4. Lack of focus during test phase. Maybe this is the main reason for
> the v2.066 regressions. Some people keep merging new PRs, before the old
> ones are proven done during the test phase. Even Walter was annoyed a
> couple of times by the multitude of versions that the people are
> simultaneously working on.
>
> 5. Rotting old PRs. The "merge window" phase would be a defined
> recurrent occasion to review and decide about those.

Of course the process can be better.  But NONE of those are a result of 
the repository split that you're advocating removing.