D has become unbearable and it needs to stop

[Martyn]

On Friday, 9 June 2023 at 08:05:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/8/2023 7:56 AM, GrimMaple wrote:
>> The truth is, I've been nagging about LTS branches, and I've 
>> been nagging directly to Mike about it, and it went nowhere.
>
> It's not about not caring about it. It's just that I can't see 
> how it would be effective. Making LTS versions balkanizes the 
> language into multiple languages, which will play hell with 3rd 
> party library maintenance.
>
> Clearly, the deprecation scheme is not serving our users well. 
> We'll have to find a better way.


On Thursday, 15 June 2023 at 07:39:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> It's come up before many times, it's not like we haven't 
> considered it.
>
> We actually do have it - we do major releases, and point 
> releases.
> Into the point releases go regression fixes and critical bug 
> fixes.
>
> The trouble, though, is we simply don't have the staff to do a 
> whole
> lot with this.


I understand this could be division (or maybe also to say 
repetition) to the core/language developers if we introduce LTS 
in D. I mean, if there was a security vulnerability that was 
fixed, it would need to be replicated on the active LTS releases, 
etc.

However, I do not see why this would cause a division for 3rd 
Party Libraries - as they *should* be targeting their releases 
towards LTS, anyway.


I think enough content has been voiced about LTS and, generally, 
appear to be on a similar wavelength by those in favour of it. 
Certainly enough for it to be discussed in a near future meeting 
with the core members.

I understand there might not be enough staff at this time and 
other factors. I get it. I still believe this can spark more 
discussion and, potentally, form a strategy on how **it could 
work** if we had X, Y and Z.

If a plan is presented and is understood on what needs to be done 
+ the work involved, maybe someone will step up and get involved.


Thanks.