DMD 1.030 and 2.014 releases

[Lutger]

Chris Wright wrote:
> 
> I am. There seems to be demand for it. And if there were such a branch,
> Walter could even stop maintaining the 1.x branch because bugfixes from
> the 2.x branch would get ported to the 1.1 branch.
> 
> This isn't ideal for the community, perhaps. If enough people were
> involved, however, Walter would just be working on an experimental
> branch, and the community would handle bugfixes.
> 
>> --bb

imho, this would only be a good idea if 1.1 would not be another branch, but
replace the current D1 language. D1 was and is about D not being a moving
target and that has been pretty successful as far as I can see. Creating a
language incompatible with both 1.0x and 2.x will only complicate matters. 

Implementing 'changes' like the currently discussed one that don't have much
impact or are actually clarifications from the spec is one thing. But
adding new features, even if backward compatible, may introduce again the
situation that libraries grow out-of-sync. How much of a problem that will
be in practice, I don't know. But development in D is much more practical
now than before D1 was stabilized, and it would be very unfortunate to lose
that.

Besides, the plan is stabilize D2 somewhere this year already (iirc). Thus
such a branch might not even be worthwhile before the migration starts.