Now what happens to the "What's left for 1.0" discussions and stuff?

[Juan Jose Comellas]

It is not clear to me whether D 1.0 meant freezing the spec or having a
production-grade DMD. I really hoped that DMD would fix at least bug #621
(http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=621) for DMD 1.0, because
the Linux version is practically unusable with bugs like this one.


Stewart Gordon wrote:

> Now that 1.0* is here, what's are we going to do with all these attempts
> to round up what's needed for 1.0, much of which is still pending?
> 
> * Walter's actually called it 1.00, except in the compiler itself, which
> reports its version as 1.0.  On the basis that this particular
> versioning system was two integers separated by a dot rather than a
> decimal number, is 1.00 just 1.0 with half of it expressed in octal?  :-)
> 
> 1. Pending Peeves is still, according to itself, a list of "issues that
> people feel need to address, hopefully in time for D 1.0".
> 
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PendingPeeves
> 
> 2. Then there was d1.0blocker, only 4 out of 15 nominees fixed and 0 out
> of 17 nominations answered.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/ynfztu
> 
> 3. In the same area is the Bugzilla tracker to "Get the documentation
> cleaned up for 1.0", which seemed to be a little more successful, with
> 11 issues fixed out of 17.
> 
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=677
> 
> 
> I suppose part of the trouble is that, back in those days, quite a few
> of us expected 1.0 to be a milestone from a practical and not just
> symbolic POV.  And now we have a new question of which major version
> issues should be nominated to block now and what we should get the
> documentation cleaned up for now.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Stewart.