Seemingly patternless optlink premature termination

[Jerry via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 9 January 2017 at 07:05:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> If you don't report bugs, they are guaranteed to not get fixed. 
> There's nothing anyone can do with the statement you made.

If it's an Optlink bug it is pretty much a guarantee regardless 
even if the bug is reported.

>> To what end?
>
> Complaining that somebody didn't fix problems neither you nor 
> anyone else reported is not very sporting.

Guess you missed literally the rest of that paragraph that 
outlines how bugs are actually handled in regards to optlink, let 
me repost it:

Look at the bug with Optlink related to data that has more than 
16 MB. What happened with that? Was that known bug fixed? No, a 
limitation was introduced into DMD to accommodate Optlink's bug. 
Rather than doing the sane decision to fix the bug in Optlink. 
Why? Probably because no one wants to deal with assembly.


Bugs get reported, reported bugs don't get fixed, limitations are 
introduced to accommodate bugs. That's the way Optlink is handled.

I'd more "sporting" if "please report bugs for optlink" wasn't 
synonymous for, "please think we care about (and might actually 
fix it) the bug you found with our project even though no one has 
touched optlink in 2 years". At some point you have to say, yes 
this isn't working, we should do something else. It becomes that 
much more difficult when the other party isn't even willing to 
accept there's a problem when optlink hasn't had a commit in 2 
years. Stern words need to be used to get it through to the 
stubborn party.

>> There isn't even an Optlink specific bug list.
>
> I found the list I posted by searching bugzilla for "optlink". 
> If there are any I missed, please let me know.

I meant a subsection of like dmd/druntime/phobos, but I guess 
that wouldn't help if people don't know the bugs they are 
reporting are for optlink.