DMD 2.1.0?

[Adam Wilson]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:30:21 -0700, bearophile <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com>  
wrote:

> Given:
> - The many differences between dmd 2.059 and 2.060alpha, and the amount  
> of time passed since the release of 2.059;
> - The fact that there are some 2.060alpha regressions to be fixed still,  
> so dmd 2.060 is not coming out tomorrow;
> - And the recent idea of introducing stable dmd releases that include  
> many patches despite not being really a v.2.061 (see the "Stable D  
> Releases!" in D.announce);
> - That I think a "languageNumber.majorVersion.revision" numbering scheme  
> is better, more widespread and more useful (where "languageNumber" is 1,  
> 2 and maybe 3, a change in "majorVersion" means something is changed in  
> the language and this calls for changes in user code and this is the  
> point where the stable D releases must include all the patches of the  
> main trunk, and "revision" means just bug fixes and tiny  
> backwards-compatible enhancements that are not necessarily included in  
> the stable D release) (See:  
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning ).
>
> Then I suggest to call the next release dmd  2.1.0 :-)
>
> And maybe in such 2.1.0 it's better to deprecate the features marked as  
> "future" here:
> http://dlang.org/deprecate.html
>
> In a Bugzilla entry (6277) I have also suggested another idea (maybe fit  
> for dmd 2.1.0 still) to improve the evolvability of the D language:  
> beside using -d (deprecated features) another way to face those problems  
> is to use an idea from Python, a switch like "-future" that activates  
> language features that will be introduced in future (this also means the  
> "-property" flag gets moved into "-future" and removed, so the total  
> amount of dmd flags doesn't change).
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

This may pose an issue to the dlang-stable project ... Particularly I  
think we all are still trying to figure out just how it will work. At this  
point the dlang-stable repos are just forks of D from June 16th, it's  
essentially just a snapshot of 2.060. Our plan was to reset the repos to  
2.060 to clean out any mistakes made during the learning process and then  
use 2.060 as a the base point.

After that a 2.1.61 makes a LOT of sense, at least for dlang-stable. :-)

However, if you want to make the argument that the June 16 snapshot of  
2.060 is a good enough starting point, i'm all ears. :-)

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/