Using D, not developing D...

[Henrik Harmsen]

Frits van Bommel Wrote:

> Henrik Harmsen wrote:
> > Which version of DMD should I use if I need a stable compiler?
> > 
> > I want to use D for developing an application but I need a stable compiler (as bug free as possible). Will there be a fork into devel and stable? For me, that's necessary.
> > 
> > Maybe the answer is someone else but Walter should pick this up, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
> 
> This is why the -v1 switch was added to DMD. It's supposed to preserve 
> backwards-compatibility to DMD v1.00.
> The idea is that you can update the compiler to the newest version 
> without losing the ability to compile programs that were legal for DMD 
> v1.00.
> So then 'dmd' would be your devel, and 'dmd -v1' the stable.


I'm not asking about backwards compatibility, I'm asking about stability. A piece of software can be backwards compatible without being stable.

To me, relying only on the -v1 switch seems like inadequate version control. The following problems immediately come to mind with this approach:

How do I know which bug fixes have been made to the stable (-v1) and the devel version? 
I need to know this so I can see if a fix affects me or not and whether it is really stable (has few fixes over the last X months).

How do I know which features are in -v1? 
For example, the compile time execution of functions doesn't seem to affect the language so it could be (is?) used for -v1 compilation. That is important to know since it affects performance of course.

How are additions and fixes to the devel version being kept from affecting the stable version?
Example: Are bugs in the compile time execution of functions affecting -v1? Then -v1 is really useless as a stamp for stability.

   -- Henrik