State of Play

[Brad Roberts]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Leandro Lucarella <llucax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Walter Bright, el 26 de marzo a las 16:58 me escribiste:
>>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>>> It's not the bugs that you know about that cause problems for other people!
>>> Half-baked implementations won't help them, either. I just don't think
>>> the answer is, what is in essence, a lot more releases.
>> Millions of open source projects that work that way can prove you wrong.
> 
> 
> I think part of the problem with the current approach is that the
> "stable" D releases seem to have no connection with reality.  It's
> always been way older than it should be every time I've looked.  I
> wouldn't recommend that anyone use 1.030 right now.  I'd say 1.037
> should be the most recent "stable" version at the moment.   It seems
> there isn't a good process in place for figuring out what's stable and
> what's not.
> 
> It seems to me the only people who would know which compilers deserve
> the "stable" label are the folks using dmd on a daily basis to build
> their software.  Yet I've never seen the question come up here or
> anywhere else of what version of D the users find to be the most
> stable.   My impression is frankly that Walter just arbitrarily slaps
> the label on a rev that's about 10 steps back from current.  Probably
> there's more to it than that, but that's what it seems like.
> 
> --bb

Actually it's more like he moves it forward when conversations like this
come up and point out how far behind it is.  I'm not sure I've seen it
ever pro-actively moved forward, only re-actively. :)

Later,
Brad