[dmd-internals] 3rd Biweekly Sprint Planning

[Martin Nowak via dmd-internals]

On 08/10/2015 07:10 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> - Do we need to keep ddmd working with 2.068?
> 
> For the time being, yes, and for as long as possible.

Sticking to an old version of the compiler defeats a major reason to
switch to self-hosting. By using D ourselves for a big project we'll
resolve particular issues that'll come up. But if we cannot profit from
solving those, this will have little impact.

So what is the major reason we need backwards compatibility for more
than 1 version?
After all you can always do the following.

download2068
foreach (ver; 2.069 .. 2.085)
{
    git checkout ver
    buildWithPreviousVer
}

It seems to me the key problem is to guarantee that the above works,
which is what I meant with testing compatibility.
The minimum IMO would be the classical self-compiling check, and of
course a rigorous test suite.

buildWithPreviousVer
test
buildWithCurrentVer
test
buildWithCurrentVer <- binary must be equal to buildWithCurrentVer above
test


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dmd-internals/attachments/20150811/ea814789/attachment.sig>