D versionning

[Wouter Verhelst]

"Roman D. Boiko" <rb at d-coding.com> writes:

> On Friday, 13 July 2012 at 06:52:25 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
>> I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much
>> community disagreement with this...
>
> I would not be against having development and stable versions, but the
> price is not trivial: every pull request must be done in at least two
> branches, probably diverging significantly. And most benefits are
> already available: we have the git version and the last stable version
> (of course, the latter would be without the latest bug-fixes). That
> would mean slower progress in applying existing pull requests. (There
> are 100+ of those, aren't there?)

Speaking from personal experience maitaining some code in git, I believe
this fear is unfounded.

Although code may and will diverge in such a model, you'll find that in
most cases, bugfixes will apply to both branches with no or little
changes; and that git will be able to automatically handle most of those
differences with no issues (things like "the line numbers didn't match,
but the code did"). This is actually one of the major strengths of
git: merging code and patches to several branches is extremely
easy. While you will probably want to review what was merged, this
usually doesn't take a whole lot of time, and should be fairly
straightforward. And when you eventually do reach the point where
maintaining the divergent versions is taking much more of your time,
that's probably the point where you need to think about releasing the
next stable version.

-- 
The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by
the following formula:

pi zz a