D versionning

[Adam Wilson]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:32:06 -0700, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 7/15/2012 3:00 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
>>> Also, all the released versions of D are available for download. There  
>>> is no
>>> need to constantly download the latest if that disrupts your projects.
>>>
>>
>> And with the comming deprecation of D1, what then?
>
> It'll still be there for download for those that want to use it.
>

I guess my point is that at that time we only have one operative branch  
per your implication. Great, it's still there, but it's un

>> Going backwards is almost never the answer with D2, the bugs are almost  
>> always
>> still there.
>
> To me, 'stable' means unchanging, not 'has no bugs'.
>

So the problem is semantics then? Because I dredge up another word to  
describe what we are asking for if that's all it takes. But I don't think  
that anyone else is going to read "stable" as "unchanging". Software is by  
definition changing, or it's dead. It appears to my parsing of your  
sentence that you are asserting that stable == static. By that definition  
of stable, Windows ME is "stable" and ... ehrm, not a soul in the tech  
world would agree with that summation of WinME.

As I said earlier, no one else in FOSS or Commercial equates stable with  
"has no bugs", it means no new features and no regressions. Not a single  
solitary person I've talked too expects their software to be bug free.

THIS is what we mean when we say "stable":  
http://www.modernperlbooks.com/mt/2009/06/what-does-stable-mean.html
It's also how pretty much everyone else will read "stable".

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