dmd 2.068, 2.069, 2.0xx Evil Plan going forward

Mathias Lang via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Mon Jul 20 14:26:45 PDT 2015


2015-07-20 22:28 GMT+02:00 Gary Willoughby via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>:

> On Monday, 20 July 2015 at 19:30:36 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> I'm sad that this discussion on Evil Plans has so quickly turned into a
>> deluge of posts bikeshedding a version number.
>>
>
> Hardly bikeshedding. The comments are merely pointing out that as it
> stands D doesn't follow any particular versioning style, making each
> release hard to understand in the big picture. No other language has these
> problems and usually use well documented, easily understandable versioning.
> a la http://semver.org
>

We do follow a versioning style: '2.MAJOR.PATCH'  (with major being 3
digits). It's not as good as SemVer, but better than it was few years ago,
and I have faith we'll end up following SemVer at some point.

Following SemVer strictly wouldn't solve the real problem: We'll go from
2.068, 2.069. 2.070.. to 3.0.0, 4.0.0, 5.0.0 and will soon end up playing
catch up with Chrome.
To follow SemVer we'll have to separate breaking changes from bugfixes
(including regressions) from new feature, and most likely work with
separate branches.. Martin already started to work on this and we're in a
nicer spot now, but it requires manpower.
Since we don't have 2 consecutive releases that don't break code, I see no
point in changing the version scheme at this point other than satisfying
the purists.

Having a focus for releases will hopefully mitigate that problem. But so
far most posts have been about "BTW we need that fixed" and "our versioning
scheme is broken".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20150720/41203f01/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list