On Oct 19, 2013 10:11 AM, "Johannes Pfau" <nos...@example.com> wrote: > > Am Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:45:27 -0700 > schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org>: > > > > - We do not have any defined release timeline. When is it time to > > > start prepping for a release? It's up to Walter's arbitrary decision > > > for when this happens, he doesn't even talk to the community or > > > contributors on whether it's a good time for a beta phase (maybe > > > there's a huge or disruptive new pull request that's planning to be > > > merged and a beta should be delayed). > > > > I understand how that can be a bother. Walter figures the time is > > ripe for a new release when we have enough compelling features and > > fixes. I'll try to make the appropriate announcements in the future > > prior to deciding on starting a beta. > > > > Why is everyone here so obsessed with feature based releases? Quoting > Iain's post from 30.8: > > It has been about 3 months since the last release of the D > > front-end implementation. Three years experience and carrying > > out over 100 merges into GDC tells me that each time the > > development cycle starts edging towards it's fourth month, it > > makes things an absolute nightmare, in both the time consumed > > merging in the changes, and with time spent tracking down bug > > reports for unittests/testsuite cases that test backend code > > generation - with 2.060, 2.061 and 2.063 being the worst releases > > I have ever had to deal with - before 2.060 the release schedule > > (if it even qualifies as a 'schedule') was anywhere between 1-2 > > months. > > Even a rough schedule (We try to release a new frontend version every 2 > months) would help. Would it have been the end of the world if we just > released 2.064 two months ago and 2.065 now? > > But what's worse: If we keep making feature based releases then the > criteria for release should be documented by those making the decision. > It's as simple as writing two sentences on a wiki page. > Right now I don't have any clue why the 'time is ripe' now and not 2 > months ago, or one month ago, or in two weeks... It seems like Walter > is just flipping a coin every month (I don't say it is like that - > but it looks like that because there's no information on the release > criteria) > > And btw: 5 months between releases is just way too long for users as > well. Although the features Walter envisioned for 2.064 may not have > been ready 2 months ago we could have shipped many bug fixes two months > earlier.
And a big +1 to that as well. Regards -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';