[dmd-internals] 3rd Biweekly Sprint Planning

[Martin Nowak via dmd-internals]

On Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 02:58:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Let's do that then.

Yep, 2.067 sounds good and it seems one of gdc/ldc will have a 
2.067 before 2.069.

> How about doing a PR for the sources? Seems to me we're just 
> sitting around jawboning, and not moving forward!

This discussion is necessary. Switching to ddmd is a big change 
with lots of consequences and you should be willing to spent some 
time to make better decisions.

At least we're not excluding gdc/ldc now. We still have to decide 
on an update policy for the baseline compiler that works for 
dmd/gdc/ldc and we need to figure out how to test for 
compatibility.
https://trello.com/c/4NtxWDtK/48-ddmd-bootstraping-and-backwards-compatibility-guarantees

I'd propose that we require ddmd to be compilable with the latest 
2 versions of dmd/ddmd, e.g. 2.067.x and 2.068.x and with the 
latest available versions of gdc and ldc.
This should be tested and enforced before releasing a new version 
of ddmd, so we should write a test script for that.