Don, el 27 de marzo a las 10:58 me escribiste: > Brad Roberts wrote: > >Bill Baxter wrote: > >>On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Leandro Lucarella <[email protected]> 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 > > Yes. I think I was responsible for the provoking two of the three > changes that have occured. I don't like that at all. I think what's > really lacking is a process for declaring a revision as stable. Then, > library developers would need to agree to make sure to verify that > everything works with the last version which is declared as stable. > > It'd also be nice to mark in the changelog as soon as a version is known > to be broken, so that more people don't download it.
Make beta/release candidate release! If code is in a SCM is much more simpler, you can simply say: "hey, people, a new release is comming next week, can you download current <SCM> version and see if all works good?". You don't even have to go throgh a complete release process. -- Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASALTAN, GOLPEAN SALVAJEMENTE A ANCIANA Y LE COMEN LA PASTAFROLA. -- Crónica TV
