On Tue, 12 May 2009 12:40:11 -0400, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
Is there a reason for the missing announcement ?
Yes, I sent it to people who'd asked for a prerelease so they could
check their builds against it.
This should be a private release then.
If 1.045 is to be a "pre-release", then it should not be on the web site.
If 1.045 has some critical bug that you decide needs to be fixed, then do
you release 1.045 again with the fix, or 1.046? The only sane choice is
to not rerelease a version that people already have, that would make bug
reporting a constant struggle (oh, you have 1.045? Is that the broken
1.045 or the good 1.045?) not only for DMD but for other projects where
compiler version is important in the bug reports. A prerelease version of
DMD should be marked as such (i.e. 1.045rc as people have suggested).
I'm not trying to cause trouble, I just don't want to see something like
this (2 releases with the same identifier). I know in the past I've
advocated for "prerelease" versions, but I meant private pre-release. The
response was always, "how do you know who should get the prerelease?"
It's a fair point. The counter argument is, libraries like Tango have to
blanketly disregard all bugs reported with a broken compiler, which
sometimes isn't included on the bug report.
-Steve
