D versionning

[Adam Wilson]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:36:06 -0700, SomeDude <lovelydear at mailmetrash.com>  
wrote:

> On Sunday, 15 July 2012 at 20:50:47 UTC, Patrick Stewart wrote:
>>> OTOH, it may break the community yet again, which we certainly don't  
>>> want, probably even less than breaking code.
>>> Also, the example of Python with two main stable branches that live in  
>>> parallel is not very encouraging.
>>
>> Also, check Python website: they recommend python v2 for all new users  
>> that don't know what to choose. They are both stable, but v2 has more  
>> libraries, and they do reassure them by saying v2 will be supported for  
>> time to come.
>>
>> On the other hand, on D website, D1 is pushed to the dark corners as  
>> ugly half child nobody should know about, and D2 is titled as thing to  
>> chose without thinking. And there is no mentioning D1 is relatively  
>> stable, while D2 is still unstable, non conforming to D documentation  
>> and that some things just don't work, while in constant beta flux that  
>> breaks things on regular basis with each release.
>>
>> So tell me again, which language treats its users with more respect ?  
>> Which one encourages users more to use them?
>
> The problem I raised is not a problem of respect. It's a problem of  
> community. The D community is a tiny fraction of the Python community.  
> It has been steadily growing this last year and a half or so, but it's  
> still fragile. The D1/D2 split basically set it back to near zero for  
> several years, with many people leaving, only a few staying, and a  
> number recently coming back.
>
> The project certainly can't afford yet another split, or many key people  
> will simply throw the towel. I for one would rather see part of the  
> users quitting than active members.
>
> As for the stability of D2, upir opinion may be different, but it has  
> largely improved recently due to increased forces, as several people  
> have noted (David Simcha in a recent thread said something about the  
> stability of the compiler being good enough that he only rarely  
> encountered a problem). And considering the rate of bugs correction, it  
> will continue to improve. You only need to have a look at the changelog  
> to see that it's growing with each release, and I'm pretty confident  
> that the 2.060 will contain more bug fixes than any past release.

You are concerned that adopting an OSS best-practice is going to split the  
community ... seriously? I find that a very hard argument to swallow with  
a straight face. We aren't splitting D2 into a D3, are simply arguing for  
a bugfix branch (stable) and a new feature branch (dev). How, pray tell,  
is this a split? We are merely seeking to make two things that are  
logically unrelated, bugs and new features, and make them physically  
unrelated as well.

The idea that bugs and new features can and should be rolled into the same  
release runs counter to every accepted best practice in both FOSS and  
Commercial wisdom. The two have VERY different velocities, bugs can be  
fixed in days, but new features take much longer. Consider COFF support  
for example, Walter has been hammering away at it for weeks now, and he  
isn't even 50% done, how many bugs have been fixed and confirmed resolved,  
in the same timespan? Also, consider that adding new features makes it  
significantly harder to track down regressions (is a real regression or  
did the new feature upset the code in an unexpected way) and the new  
features themselves create new bugs. If the branches are separate then it  
becomes trivial to determine if the new feature caused the bug, because it  
will show up in one and not the other.

How DARE we DEMAND that our users wait 4 MONTHS for regression fixes  
because we are afraid of a split or a little extra work? How many users  
could we lose if we significantly slowed down the release cycle (and  
therefore the bugfix cycle) such that people are waiting many months for  
their fixes? The language would be perceived as dead/dying and that would  
be just as bad as the D1/D2 split. If you allow your past experiences to  
paralyze you into inaction, you will bring about the very problem you seek  
to avoid.

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/