Next focus: PROCESS

[SomeDude]

On Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 22:18:14 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 15:05:58 UTC, Andrei 
> Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 12/16/12 6:15 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2012 09:39 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>>> Can we drop the LTS name ? It reminds me of ubuntu, and I 
>>>> clearly hope
>>>> that
>>>> people promoting that idea don't plan to reproduce ubuntu's 
>>>> scheme :
>>>> - it is not suitable for a programming language (as stated 3 
>>>> time now,
>>>> so just
>>>> read before why I won't repeat it).
>>>> - ubuntu is notoriously unstable.
>>>
>>> Call them "stable release cycles" if you like, which is what 
>>> they are
>>> intended to be.
>>
>> Just one tidbit of information: I talked to Walter and we want 
>> to build into the process the ability to modify any particular 
>> release. (One possibility is to do so as part of paid support 
>> for large corporate users.) That means there needs to be one 
>> branch per release.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> This sounds to me like a bad idea. And indeed, I haven't heard 
> of any other project doing this.
>
> If you do so, you'll quickly stop maintaining the older 
> branches (especially when the corporate users pay for their 
> specific developments), forcing users to hop to newer branches, 
> with the possibility of breaking changes, so it's no different 
> than today's situation.
>
> If they really want specific developments, let them have their 
> own branch and not interfere with a community driven process. 
> In fact, I may sound harsh and a bit extreme, but I think 
> paying users should have a priority to bugfixes and that's it, 
> not on the development of the language itself, as they will 
> attempt to rush half baked features.
>
> I do think a bleeding edge branch and one or two stable 
> branches (let's say one per year for the last two years) is 
> good enough. And one branch for the paying user, which will 
> merge to the bleeding edge if its specific developments prove 
> worthwhile. But as soon as there are more than one paying user, 
> it will instantaneously become impractical, so that really, 
> they should just be limited to bugfixes.
>
> BTW, will they share with the community their own developments ?

Actually, it's pretty much what's written in the wiki.
http://wiki.dlang.org/Release_Process#Release_Schedule