On 2009-10-16 15:31:15 +0200, rmcguire <rjmcgu...@gmail.com> said:
Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
digited wrote:
So you don't mind that Tango is still uncompilable with 1.050 because of
hurrying,
I didn't know that. The bugzilla number which was posted as the reason
it wouldn't compile was fixed.
Hi Walter,
could you not just put rc1, rc2, etc... at the end of the file names when you
upload to server.
This way we could tell if the release has been tested by the community, and you
wouldn't have to change your release process much? Unless of course if
it is all
automated.
-Rory
Well I am not sure that it is really worth making a full release
branching, just a tag and telling people that should become a release,
and giving binaries to test it would probably be enough normally at
least for D 1.0 where there shouldn't be large changes.
I suppose that opening the development more brought in more peoples
that don't write as defensively as W (or modifications of larger parts)
and so more testing is probably good.
In this specific case we were also probably a little bit sloppy at
reporting problems, so that the went unnoticed for a couple of releases.
I suppose that W wanted to fix regressions ASAP, which in general is
good I think, just this time it played out a little badly.
Anyway if W is willing a more formal release procedure would be good,
but not absolutely necessary
