On 2012-11-28 14:35, Walter Bright wrote:
The trouble with that is now I'd be maintaining 3 versions of the compiler rather than two.
I don't know if there would be a point of having D1 if something like D1.5 existed. It would still be as backwards compatible as D1 currently is.
Here's what happens nearly all the time. People create a pull request for a fix to D2. I don't just pull it, I review it and see if it is a fix that should be propagated to D1. If it is, I have to manually merge it into D1 (as the sources have substantially diverged by now). This gets fairly time consuming. Check the D1 commits labeled along the lines of "merge D2 pull #nnnn". Only a relatively small handful of times has anyone submitted a corresponding pull request for D1. Adding a 3rd compiler to do this to is a large time sink.
I understand that. It's not feasible for one man to maintain three compilers. You need to be able to delegate to other people. That is regardless if there were a third compiler or not. See Maxim's answer to your post.
I can see creating a stable D2 and a forward D2 for 6 months at a time or so, as has been proposed here. I think that's a good idea. But only after D1 is no longer supported.
Since D1 will be discontinued at the end of this year, if nothing has changed. It might be a good idea to start to plan for creating a stable D2.
-- /Jacob Carlborg
