dmd 2.068, 2.069, 2.0xx Evil Plan going forward

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/20/2015 11:19 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 03:47:11 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> 1. If you want ddmd to be compilable by both gdc and ldc then you can't
>> introduce any new features to the ddmd codebase post conversion.
>
> Sticking to 2.068 will help for some time but is not a long-term solution.
> Particularly when considering some of the bigger D issues left to resolve, we'll
> likely have to deal with some incompatibilities/deprecations.
> Also consider that we might use the stable phobos parts.
>
> I made a Trello card, let's discuss the details when we're actually working on
> this.
> https://trello.com/c/4NtxWDtK/30-compatibility-implications-for-self-hosting-d-compiler
>
>

I don't see a reason to maintain 2.068 beyond the time that LDC and GDC migrate 
to ddmd.