Breaking D2 language/spec changes with D1 being discontinued in a month

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-11-28 14:35, Walter Bright wrote:

> The trouble with that is now I'd be maintaining 3 versions of the
> compiler rather than two.

I don't know if there would be a point of having D1 if something like 
D1.5 existed. It would still be as backwards compatible as D1 currently is.

> Here's what happens nearly all the time. People create a pull request
> for a fix to D2. I don't just pull it, I review it and see if it is a
> fix that should be propagated to D1. If it is, I have to manually merge
> it into D1 (as the sources have substantially diverged by now). This
> gets fairly time consuming. Check the D1 commits labeled along the lines
> of "merge D2 pull #nnnn".
>
> Only a relatively small handful of times has anyone submitted a
> corresponding pull request for D1.
>
> Adding a 3rd compiler to do this to is a large time sink.

I understand that. It's not feasible for one man to maintain three 
compilers. You need to be able to delegate to other people. That is 
regardless if there were a third compiler or not. See Maxim's answer to 
your post.

> I can see creating a stable D2 and a forward D2 for 6 months at a time
> or so, as has been proposed here. I think that's a good idea. But only
> after D1 is no longer supported.

Since D1 will be discontinued at the end of this year, if nothing has 
changed. It might be a good idea to start to plan for creating a stable D2.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg