Version number: Are we ready for 1.0?
David Nadlinger via digitalmars-d-ldc
digitalmars-d-ldc at puremagic.com
Fri Apr 17 13:18:50 PDT 2015
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
More information about the digitalmars-d-ldc
mailing list