DMD needs branches

[Russell Lewis]

Walter Bright wrote:
> David Ferenczi wrote:
>> I also second this.
>>
>> Walter, please don't to address (just) the concrete bugs arose with 
>> the last
>> release, but the root of the problem.
>>
>> And it is definitely the development model. D is a moving target. We all
>> love this language, but we need a stable branch with fast and frequent
>> bugfixes.
>>
>> Please listen to your users.
> 
> The problem is that one cannot just do bugfixes without running the risk 
> of breaking things. The final thing was an effort to fix the existing 
> buggy final behavior.

I understand what you're saying, Walter, but I don't think that what 
you're saying is totally fair.  As I see it, there are several different 
types of fixes/changes that one makes in a project:

1) Fixes to resolve things that are clearly bugs, like incorrect code 
generation, compiler crashes, etc.
2) Fixes to correct "misfeatures."  These are things that are currently 
functional, but may not be working according to the spec (such as final)
3) New features

What I think people are asking is that you branch the code so that the 
stable branch only gets type (1) fixes.  It might, rarely, get type (2) 
fixes, but only after careful consideration and warning to the community 
BEFORE you implement it.  The point is: the "stable" branch should not 
be changing anything which a user might reasonably think is "working 
correctly."  Even if you think it is a misfeature, or it doesn't match 
the spec, you generally leave it as-is, and simply post a README with 
the "stable" branche which lists these lingering issues.

I'm not saying that you have any particular obligation to do this, 
Walter...it is certainly within your perogative to say no.  But at this 
point in the lifetime of D, doesn't *somebody* have to do it?