D1.x series proposal [was: State of Play]

[Don]

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Sean Kelly, el 26 de marzo a las 22:08 me escribiste:
>> == Quote from Leandro Lucarella (llucax at gmail.com)'s article
>>> D situation is a little different because D2 is already here, and it's too
>>> much ahead of D1. So a plan to backport features from D2 to D1
>>> progressively should be done.
>> Who is going to do these backports?
> 
> That's a fair question without an answer =)
> (I wish I had the time to do it. If I had the time I probably first do it
> and then propose it)
> 
>> Personally, I'd rather think about moving my code to D2 in one jump than
>> in a bunch of incremental steps, each requiring a custom compiler.
> 
> Are you? If not, why? I think D2 being a moving target make people don't
> want to port code because it would be too hard to maintain. They idea
> behind 1.x series is that each minor version is *stable*. Code you port
> to, let's say, 1.1.000, will work with 1.1.100. No new predefined
> versions, no new nothing. You get a really stable language and one that
> evolves fast. You just have to do some minor porting about once a year,
> when a new minor version is release, and that porting should be trivial.
> Porting code to D2 now is a complicated excercise, at least to do it right
> (using constness features).
> 

You'd get the same effect if we had a stable D2. Which we don't yet 
have, but it feels to me that it's converging.