D's timeline

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 20/05/14 20:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> There weren't really any alpha/beta/rc states for any of that. Neither
> formally nor informally. Back then, everything was all just "if it's
> good enough for you, then go ahead and use it". The stability was more
> of an ever-progressing (and occasionally regressing) gradient.
>
> Also, 0.x -> 1.x was only an arbitrary "line in the sand". Version 1.000
> was just simply the name of the next regular release after 0.1xx
> (whatever the "xx" would have been, don't recall offhand). The 1.000
> moniker was more PR than technical.
>
> Similarly, version 2.000 was just simply the next "mainline" release
> after it was decided to fork off a separate "no more breaking changes"
> branch (which is what 1.x *became* when 2.000 was released).
>
> It was all definitely very much *not* "semantic versioning".

Yeah, and it still continues with the same model. Although, we have had 
a few alphas and betas of individual releases.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg