Should we make DMD1.051 the recommended stable version?

[Denis Koroskin]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:15:47 +0300, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:

> "Don" <nospam at nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:he0d7l$34k$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008).
>> A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time.
>> Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many
>> people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I  
>> think
>> it's a great release.
>>
>> The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are:
>>
>> 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[])
>> 370  Compiler stack overflow on recursive typeof in function  
>> declaration.
>> 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a  
>> template,
>> from another module
>>
>> but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from  
>> being
>> recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second two
>> bugs).
>>
>> I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors
>> which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with
>> CTFE.
>>
>> If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now
>> would be a great time to say why.
>
> The only potential problem I see with that is that if you want to use  
> tango,
> any DMD beyond 1.043 would force you to go with tango trunk, which  
> wouldn't
> make much sense for anyone who is trying to stick with "stable" releases  
> of
> things.
>
>

Recent poll has shown that most people use Tango trunk anyway. Perhaps,  
it's time for another Tango release?