On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 19:57:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1.
Was that intended or just an error?

It was intended. I felt that 2.064 => 2.064.1 would have been confusing, hence 2.064 => 2.064.2

But were there 2.064 and 2.064.1 releases? If I'm not mistaken the last release was 2.063.2 (at least judging by the website), next major release should be 2.064, not 2.064.1 or 2.064.2 (those are patch releases, not major ones).

If 2.064.1 was a RC then it was badly named. As IMHO RC versions must be marked with rc, as betas are marked with b "flag". Something like 2.064-rc.1, 2.064-rc.2, ... 2.064 (stable/major release), 2.064.1 (patch release), ...

This (-rc.xx) is how RC versions should be marked as per SEMVER "standard" (http://semver.org), although I know that D doesn't follow semantic versioning as defined in that standard.

Other than this thing with versioning I must say that I'm very pleased with changes in this version, so congrats to all people involved! :)

Reply via email to