dmd 1.050 and 2.035 release

[Fawzi Mohamed]

On 2009-10-16 15:31:15 +0200, rmcguire <rjmcguire at gmail.com> said:

> Walter Bright <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
>> digited wrote:
>>> So you don't mind that Tango is still uncompilable with 1.050 because of
> hurrying,
>> 
>> I didn't know that. The bugzilla number which was posted as the reason
>> it wouldn't compile was fixed.
>> 
> 
> Hi Walter,
> 
> could you not just put rc1, rc2, etc... at the end of the file names when you
> upload to server.
> This way we could tell if the release has been tested by the community, and you
> wouldn't have to change your release process much? Unless of course if 
> it is all
> automated.
> 
> -Rory

Well I am not sure that it is really worth making a full release 
branching, just a tag and telling people that should become a release, 
and giving binaries to test it would probably be enough normally at 
least for D 1.0 where there shouldn't be large changes.

I suppose that opening the development more brought in more peoples 
that don't write as defensively as W (or modifications of larger parts) 
and so more testing is probably good.
In this specific case we were also probably a little bit sloppy at 
reporting problems, so that the went unnoticed for a couple of releases.

I suppose that W wanted to fix regressions ASAP, which in general is 
good I think, just this time it played out a little badly.

Anyway if W is willing a more formal release procedure would be good, 
but not absolutely necessary