Brad Roberts wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Leandro Lucarella <llu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Walter Bright, el 26 de marzo a las 16:58 me escribiste:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
It's not the bugs that you know about that cause problems for other people!
Half-baked implementations won't help them, either. I just don't think
the answer is, what is in essence, a lot more releases.
Millions of open source projects that work that way can prove you wrong.
I think part of the problem with the current approach is that the
"stable" D releases seem to have no connection with reality. It's
always been way older than it should be every time I've looked. I
wouldn't recommend that anyone use 1.030 right now. I'd say 1.037
should be the most recent "stable" version at the moment. It seems
there isn't a good process in place for figuring out what's stable and
what's not.
It seems to me the only people who would know which compilers deserve
the "stable" label are the folks using dmd on a daily basis to build
their software. Yet I've never seen the question come up here or
anywhere else of what version of D the users find to be the most
stable. My impression is frankly that Walter just arbitrarily slaps
the label on a rev that's about 10 steps back from current. Probably
there's more to it than that, but that's what it seems like.
--bb
Actually it's more like he moves it forward when conversations like this
come up and point out how far behind it is. I'm not sure I've seen it
ever pro-actively moved forward, only re-actively. :)
Later,
Brad
Yes. I think I was responsible for the provoking two of the three
changes that have occured. I don't like that at all. I think what's
really lacking is a process for declaring a revision as stable. Then,
library developers would need to agree to make sure to verify that
everything works with the last version which is declared as stable.
It'd also be nice to mark in the changelog as soon as a version is known
to be broken, so that more people don't download it.
