DMD 1.030 and 2.014 releases

[Miles]

Walter Bright wrote:
> I understand your point, and I have mixed feelings about it. The trouble 
> is, it isn't a stable target if it gets language changes, and everyone 
> has a different idea on what should be moved from 2.0 to 1.0.

Again, I reinforce that D versioning scheme is one of its most painful 
deficiencies. A three-component version numbering scheme 
(major.minor.patch) would best support this kind of development.

Such a change would land on the 1.x branch, without affecting the 
current 1.0.x branch, and eventually released as 1.1.0. No problem at all.

Soon, when the 2.x branch is stable enough for release as "stable", you 
will find that you won't be able to call it 2.anything, because there 
won't be any "reference point" inside the 2.x branch to call it stable, 
and the first "stable" release of 2.x will probably be called 3.0.

This should have been done long ago, since the first 1.x versions.

Good articles to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning
http://www.advogato.org/article/40.html