DMD needs branches

[Dan]

Walter Bright Wrote:
> The test suite is run before every new release. If things break with a 
> new release, it is because the case isn't reflected in the test suite. 
> Every fixed bug goes in to the test suite. For example, Kris posted two 
> things that broke with the 1.011 update. Both are fixed now, and both 
> are now in the test suite. They'll stay fixed.
> 
> Over time, the suite has a ratchet effect, with things getting better 
> and better. I've been using that system for decades with the C++ 
> compiler, and it's pretty rare for an update to break anything.
> 
> But if bugs aren't reported, then they don't get fixed, and the test 
> case never winds up in the test suite.
> 
> The only way to get a stable system is to report bugs, fix them, and put 
> the cases in the test suite. I tend to put priority on fixing things 
> that break existing code; I know how maddening that can be.

Hmm... I actually like the method to his madness.  : )

If we provide a means by which D can be thoroughly tested through and through, then each version that he writes must conform to that test?

What if we were to then write a test suite that enforced proveable conformance to the D specification for 1.0?  Evolving a truly complete test suite seems more sensible than endlessly adding bug-able examples...