D Stable Proposal
Rob T
rob at ucora.com
Fri Nov 30 11:42:11 PST 2012
On Friday, 30 November 2012 at 18:14:58 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>
> The thing is that I don't see that succeed as an external
> project.
>
I agree that it cannot be an external project, and instead it has
to become the official D process.
For example, as was discussed, and i think generally agreed on,
we have to change the way the version numbering works to a
major.minor.revision model (unless someone has a better idea to
propose, which I'd love to know about).
There's been mention that maintaining multiple branches will
fail, and I see that someone has previously attempted to create a
stable version of D that has in fact failed.
Rather than taking on a defeatist attitude, we need to look at
those past failures and learn from them, so as not to repeat the
same mistakes over again, and also to figure out a better
solution that has a better chance for success.
There's been mention that branch maintenance will be a great deal
of tedium for a maintainer, so I think that's an area that needs
to be dealt with first. If it's too difficult to maintain, I
agree it probably won't be maintained for very long.
We have to make it so that the path of least resistance for
everyone is to follow whatever process is eventually worked out.
I also do expect to see some failures here and there, but that's
normal and to be expected, we just have to be persistent until a
workable solution is found.
The issue here, as stated by Andrei, which I fully agree with, is
that D is fighting for its own life. We have no choice but to
improve the process, otherwise D will never grow past the current
point it is at and will eventually fade away into obscurity.
This is a do or die situation IMO.
--rt
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list