WTF: dmd 2.066 vs. dmd 2.067 really dangerous code breakage

[Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 02:09:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 4/23/2015 6:26 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> I agree it should have been done, not saying it's OK to break 
>> the process in
>> some cases. I'm just explaining why it probably happened the 
>> way it did.
>
> Yes, it should have been done. We screwed up.

It's time that we agree on/document an official deprecation 
approach and rigorously enforce it, making as few exceptions as 
possible. As it stands now, everyone follows their own policy. 
Any volunteer to put this in a DIP?