D has become unbearable and it needs to stop

[monkyyy]

On Sunday, 18 June 2023 at 17:49:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/17/2023 5:14 AM, monkyyy wrote:
>> All you need to say is "d version 99 is the lts for the next 3 
>> year" or maybe a formal blog post by 5ish people.
>
> Somebody needs to step up and pull fixes into it.

>> Coordination is not when everyone speaks.

Coordination is not when everyone speaks.

Your specifically the dictator for life, maybe md could write a 
formal blog post but there's a handful of voices that are "loud". 
An lts is a schelling point. It *can be* someone going out of 
their way to provide bug fixes and that is what makes it 
coordinated but it could also be like python 2 where the 
community just didn't upgrade for years.

If grim fixes a bug for version 2.87 and adr is trying to make 
something work on a d1 compiler and mir-whatevers maintains tests 
if their code works on 2.95; there no LTS there a bunch of people 
trying to fix their local problem, there's a (very very) wasteful 
coordination mechanisms for people without leaders such as what 
happens between fireflies. But, these take many cycles of 
messages and when those messages are headache-inducing bug fixes 
in ancient code the coordination may not happen before people 
leave.

If you say version 2.99 is the lts, and then store up a bunch of 
breaking changes for 2.125 then declare 2.124 the new lts. That 
may just work *without any extra bug fixes*, depending on how 
strongly the community trusts that message.Maybe grim ignores a 
bug report about 2.87 compiler, maybe mir tests upgrades its test 
suite to be 2.99 and maybe, just maybe, adr stops talking about 
the great d1 compile speeds and their actions may overlap better. 
Not likely, but it should be considered if you consider dlang gui 
important.