Bill Baxter wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Leandro Lucarella <llu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Walter Bright, el 26 de marzo a las 16:58 me escribiste: >>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote: >>>> It's not the bugs that you know about that cause problems for other people! >>> Half-baked implementations won't help them, either. I just don't think >>> the answer is, what is in essence, a lot more releases. >> Millions of open source projects that work that way can prove you wrong. > > > I think part of the problem with the current approach is that the > "stable" D releases seem to have no connection with reality. It's > always been way older than it should be every time I've looked. I > wouldn't recommend that anyone use 1.030 right now. I'd say 1.037 > should be the most recent "stable" version at the moment. It seems > there isn't a good process in place for figuring out what's stable and > what's not. > > It seems to me the only people who would know which compilers deserve > the "stable" label are the folks using dmd on a daily basis to build > their software. Yet I've never seen the question come up here or > anywhere else of what version of D the users find to be the most > stable. My impression is frankly that Walter just arbitrarily slaps > the label on a rev that's about 10 steps back from current. Probably > there's more to it than that, but that's what it seems like. > > --bb
Actually it's more like he moves it forward when conversations like this come up and point out how far behind it is. I'm not sure I've seen it ever pro-actively moved forward, only re-actively. :) Later, Brad