On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 19:57:40 UTC, Walter Bright
On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and
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