dmd 2.068, 2.069, 2.0xx Evil Plan going forward

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/20/2015 8:47 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 3. Force stability language through codebase.  Maybe ddmd will be a bad example
> as it's pretty much written in the style of a Poor-mans-C++-in-D.  But not
> breaking language compatibility between 2.068 and LATEST should help reduce
> regressions between versions.  Most people I've talked to agree.

I agree it makes sense to stick with 2.068 to compile ddmd until gdc and ldc can 
switch to ddmd.