[phobos] Any reason we're not ready for a release?

[Don Clugston]

On 5 May 2011 08:25, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
>> On 5/4/2011 9:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> > The one thing that I'm aware of that was a problem thanks to Don's CTFE
>> > changes which I don't know whether it was fixed or not was QtD. IIRC, Max
>> > was saying that it was seriously broken earlier. There's a good chance
>> > that it's fine now, but I think that we should make sure that QtD is no
>> > longer failing to build due to the CTFE changes.
>>
>> I folded in patches to dmd requested by Qt. If there are other issues with
>> Qt, are they in bugzilla?
>
> No, I don't believe so. I just recall that when the recent CTFE changes came
> up in one of the threads in the main newsgroup, and I mentioned that they were
> still broken, because my recent changes to std.datetime weren't compiling, Max
> said that they were causing a lot of failures for QtD as well. I doubt that he
> would have created a bug report though, given that Don was in the middle of
> his changes. It's quite possible that it compiles fine now though. I just
> think that it should be verified that the CTFE changes are now stable enough
> that QtD is no longer failing to build because of them as it was before. Much
> as Don's changes are definitely something that we want, they risk causing
> serious regressions if we're not careful.

I added a lot more very harsh sanity checks to the CTFE engine, so
there's very little risk of wrong-code regressions.
If there are any regressions, they will probably be an ICE, on
something which previously worked by pure luck.

I think we should roll out a beta, as soon as Phobos unittests pass.