Is it time for D 3.0?

[dsimcha]

== Quote from KennyTM~ (kennytm at gmail.com)'s article
> dsimcha wrote:
> > == Quote from Paul D. Anderson (paul.d.removethis.anderson at comcast.andthis.net)'s
> > article
> >> I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might
> > be of more general interest.
> >> With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it
> > time to move on to D version 3.0?
> >> It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose
> > between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
> >> Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could
> > fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
> >> I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will
> > occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
> >> Paul
> >
> > My 2 cents is that I think, in hindsight, it might have been a mistake to declare
> > a 1.0 release when so many breaking changes to the language spec were still to be
> > made.  D1 seems like it's an artificially stable spec for people who needed a
> > stable spec.  However, it was released before the "real" spec was finalized and
> > will likely have little future once D2 is finalized.  I don't think the same
> > mistake should be made by releasing D2 as yet another artificially stable spec
> > when there is still likely to be massive code breakage in a subsequent release.
> I believe the D1 spec is stable enough, only that dmd is not stable. The
> only spec-relating changed to 1.0 since Jun 17th (v2.000 was released) are:
> * Added aliases string, wstring, and dstring to ease compatiblity with
> 2.0. (v1.016)
> *  Added __VENDOR__ and __VERSION__. (v1.017)
> * The .init property for a variable is now based on its type, not its
> initializer. (v1.017, breaking)
> * Added 0x78 Codeview extension for type dchar. (v1.019)
> * Added extern (System) (v1.019)
> * Multiple module static constructors/destructors allowed. (v1.021)
> * Data items in static data segment >= 16 bytes in size are now
> paragraph aligned. (v1.023)
> *  Re-enabled auto interfaces. (v1.027)

Sorry for the misunderstanding.  I wasn't referring to the stability of the D1
spec, but the spec for the D trunk.  Yes, on the "trunk spec", in this case D2,
breaking changes are fine to a degree, but D1 and D2 appear to be diverging
significantly.  My point is that it might have been premature to declare a
meaningful stable branch that doesn't end up as almost a separate language from
the trunk.