D 1.076 and 2.061 release

[Pierre Rouleau]

On 13-01-06 11:40 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Pierre Rouleau, el  4 de January a las 11:59 me escribiste:
>> On 13-01-04 3:45 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2013 12:16 AM, eles wrote:
>>>> Two concrete examples:
>>>>
>>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5992
>>>>
>>>> is described in the list as: " Phobos Win64 - D2 "; At least, change
>>>> its title
>>>> to something more human, like "Win64 alpha has been released with working
>>>> Phobos." (yes, that's exactly Don's comment, but at the end of the
>>>> discussion).
>>>>
>>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5269
>>>>
>>>> is described as: "version(assert)". Only if you read the discussion you
>>>> understand that "version(unittest) that allows setup code for assertions
>>>> to run when assertions are enabled and be compiled out when assertions
>>>> are
>>>> disabled" was implemented.
>>>>
>>>> It is very different thing to see "version(assert)" and reading a
>>>> meaningful
>>>> description of it...
>>>
>>> I understand and agree. And, as I posted previously, anyone can fix the
>>> issue titles. I've already fixed a few.
>> Don't you think a process that requires reviewing these titles
>> *before* the actual software release announcement posting would
>> help?
>
> Yeah, that's another issue too. Having mutating "release notes" is awful
> and a PR disaster. Users only see the changelog once, assuming is
> immutable, because one thinks that releases are immutable and complete
> (those are very fundamental properties of a release, otherwise is a
> preview or a snapshot).
>
> That's another thing that I think is important to address eventually.
>

Currently, from the outside, I get the impression that the D language is 
a great language but a language for its developers only.  Although it 
might be OK while the language is in its infancy, I would hope that D(2) 
would come out of that state now that several books exist, that the 
standard library seems in pretty good shape, that several other 
libraries, frameworks and tools exist.   To me, what seems missing is 
some wrapper around all of this that would make D(2) much more 
attractive for organizations like the one I work for. I am personally 
very interested in D(2) and have already done discussions inside my work 
place, but without that sort of visible infrastructure I doubt I would 
be able to convince anyone to adopt D(2) for any product-based 
development (and even for some internal tools).

So, again, this is why I was asking whether you guys thought it would be 
a good idea for me to start a discussion somewhere in one of the D 
mailing lists, to gather the list of new features planned for the future 
(unless something like that already exists, but I did not find it) and 
get something going to create a running list.



-- 
/Pierre Rouleau