DMD needs branches

[Russell Lewis]

Brad Roberts wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Walter Bright wrote:
>> But bugfixes themselves can cause such problems.
> 
> Sure, they can.  That's not the issue.  The issue is that a bug fix is 
> considerably less likely to introduce regressions than new features are.  
> By separating where new features are emerging, you've got a much higher 
> chance of keeping a monotomically increasing in stability release version.

Let me say something here about "monotonically increasing stability." 
IMHO, this is not an absolute requirement of a "stable" release.  At 
least in my company, we don't pick up new tools (compilers, etc.) 
without putting in some test on them.  If I was using dmd for work, for 
instance, I wouldn't put a new version of the compiler to production use 
until (at least) the new DStress report had come out, and I had done a 
test build with the compiler on my code.  (Plus run a few quick 
regression tests on my code built with the new compiler.)  So if there 
are new bugs in a new compiler, I simply never pick it up.  That's 
unfortunate, but not terminal.

I know that some here will disagree, but to me the essence of a "stable" 
branch is not bug-free compilers every time, but instead a reasonable 
expectation that I will eventually get my bugs fixed without having to 
simultaneously pick up new language changes.