Breaking D2 language/spec changes with D1 being discontinued in a month

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-11-29 21:36, Rob T wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 November 2012 at 19:53:13 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Thursday, 29 November 2012 at 19:30:00 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> Isn't this only necessary if the new feature depends on said breaking
>>> changes? If not, it can be safely merged in. If it's a trivial change
>>> like a syntax change, the stable maintainer can simply fix it by hand
>>> and merge it in anyway.
>>>
>>
>> New code means new bugs. This is why most project use the 3 numbers
>> version. Eventually, if you add a new module to phobos, people use it,
>> and even if you don't you ends up using it indirectly and you get the
>> bugs.
>
> The 3 number system is fine grained enough to do what we probably want.
>
> If we use 3 version numbers like this: major.minor.revision, then
>
> Incrementing "major" indicates a major release with breaking changes
> incorporated and/or new features added.
>
> Incrementing "minor" indicates no breaking changes, no new features, but
> possibly new bugs were introduced due to the the changes that were made.

That's not what I've heard. Minor could be new features, as long as they 
don't break anything. But that might be more for libraries, i.e. adding 
a new function.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg