Should we make DMD1.051 the recommended stable version?

[Moritz Warning]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:19:11 +0300, Denis Koroskin wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:15:47 +0300, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
> 
>> "Don" <nospam at nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:he0d7l$34k$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008). A couple of
>>> hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time. Some of the
>>> intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many people from
>>> using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I think
>>> it's a great release.
>>>
>>> The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are:
>>>
>>> 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[]) 370  Compiler
>>> stack overflow on recursive typeof in function declaration.
>>> 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a
>>> template,
>>> from another module
>>>
>>> but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from
>>> being
>>> recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second
>>> two bugs).
>>>
>>> I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors
>>> which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with
>>> CTFE.
>>>
>>> If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051,
>>> now would be a great time to say why.
>>
>> The only potential problem I see with that is that if you want to use
>> tango,
>> any DMD beyond 1.043 would force you to go with tango trunk, which
>> wouldn't
>> make much sense for anyone who is trying to stick with "stable"
>> releases of
>> things.
>>
>>
>>
> Recent poll has shown that most people use Tango trunk anyway. Perhaps,
> it's time for another Tango release?

1.051 looks like a good choice for a stable dmd version.
I think that a new Tango release is underway already.