Version number: Are we ready for 1.0?

[David Nadlinger via digitalmars-d-ldc]

On 04/17/2015 01:26 PM, Dmitri Makarov via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:
> The LDC developers should set criteria for what they consider to be
> production quality of the compiler.

LDC has been production-ready on Linux for a long time.

> Once the compiler satisfies the
> criteria the version can be advanced to 1.x. Anything before that is a
> beta version of the compiler

This is not a hard and fast rule. Some counterexamples that come to my 
mind include DOSBox, dconf and libssh. I agree, though, that pre-1 
version numbers might be perceived as less stable. And incrementing the 
major version counter quickly certainly is the fashion of the day.

> If
> with the 2.068 move LDC still fails regression tests on OS X or Windows,
> although these tests pass on Linux, it would be premature to bump the
> version to 1.0, in my opinion.

I don't think so. Windows can still remain a beta-quality platform 
target even if we choose a version number that suggests a stable release 
for Linux. After all, what about all the other platforms out there? 
FreeBSD? iOS? Haiku? Embedded targets? Case in point: Win64 isn't quite 
stable for DMD and GDC either.

  — David