dmd 1.045 / 2.030 release

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 12 May 2009 12:40:11 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>> Is there a reason for the missing announcement ?
>
> Yes, I sent it to people who'd asked for a prerelease so they could  
> check their builds against it.

This should be a private release then.

If 1.045 is to be a "pre-release", then it should not be on the web site.   
If 1.045 has some critical bug that you decide needs to be fixed, then do  
you release 1.045 again with the fix, or 1.046?  The only sane choice is  
to not rerelease a version that people already have, that would make bug  
reporting a constant struggle (oh, you have 1.045?  Is that the broken  
1.045 or the good 1.045?) not only for DMD but for other projects where  
compiler version is important in the bug reports.  A prerelease version of  
DMD should be marked as such (i.e. 1.045rc as people have suggested).

I'm not trying to cause trouble, I just don't want to see something like  
this (2 releases with the same identifier).  I know in the past I've  
advocated for "prerelease" versions, but I meant private pre-release.  The  
response was always, "how do you know who should get the prerelease?"   
It's a fair point.  The counter argument is, libraries like Tango have to  
blanketly disregard all bugs reported with a broken compiler, which  
sometimes isn't included on the bug report.

-Steve