So D will have LTS or not?

[bachmeier]

On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 11:48:48 UTC, GrimMaple wrote:

> On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 10:36:11 UTC, Martyn wrote:

>> Thing is, I do not see an LTS being created any time soon. It 
>> is more than to simply `git branch..` and here ya go! It will 
>> require a few people to maintain it. On top of this, it will 
>> be a cultural change in the D ecosystem especially for library 
>> developers to target target LTS, and to provide a version 
>> number standard to indicate which LTS it refers to.
>>
>>    At least that is my opinion on the matter.
>
> I share a similar opinion, that simply branching off any 
> release point and calling it LTS isn't going to be cutting it. 
> Not only this LTS has to be recognized, but the whole D 
> language would need some form of feature/bugfix planning. You 
> can't have an LTS release without planning features 
> ahead-of-time.

You're going to have to clarify this part in order to make 
progress. What bug fixes are required? Currently we have many 
compilers in use out in the wild, and there are no bug fixes 
being ported to them from later releases. (Has a single bug fix 
been ported from 2.104 to 2.101, even though they're only six 
months apart?) Those in power are saying that *all* bug fixes 
would have to be ported back to an LTS, and until the manpower 
for that is in place, we have to stick with the current mess. If 
you want to push this through, you're going to have to find a 
compromise that's realistic.

If there's an LTS release every 18 months, anything related to 
new features will take care of itself. New features will only 
enter if they're ready. Anyone wanting to operate on the cutting 
edge can still use the latest non-LTS release. The LTS is for 
folks wanting stability, not features.