Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
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).
Agreed. This is why recently DMD2.028 was released, rather than a
re-release of DMD2.027 with bug 2812 fixed.
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.
Private prereleases are happening. This was actually DMD2.030 RC3.
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
