The new std.process is ready for review

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-02-25 17:20, Don wrote:

> I don't think this is true at all.
> With respect -- I think Walter has absolutely no clue about backwards
> compatibility and deprecation.
>
> Here's how it should work:
> 1. You make promises  (about future compatibility).
> 2. You keep those promises.
>
> Walter tries to do (2). without doing (1). The result is the insanity
> we've had for years. It means an unpredictable, unplanned set of often
> undesirable behaviour is preserved, that doesn't help stability anyway.
>
> We need to do (1).
>
> Can we please stop pretending this is acceptable?
> It's not "growing pains" or anything like that. It's a basic
> misunderstanding of stability.

I completely agree.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg