On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 06:35:33PM +0100, RenatoUtsch wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 December 2012 at 16:16:11 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
[...]
> >Yes, but what H.S. Theoh wrote about the desperate need of process
> >is still true and correct. Like many others here, I think it's the
> >biggest problem with D right now for its adoption. I for one will
> >never consider using D for my main line of work without a true
> >STABLE branch: a branch you can rely on. And yet I'm pretty sold
> >to the language, but when your project is at stake, what you need
> >is security. And the current development scheme doesn't provide
> >that.
>
> Yeah, but if people doesn't help to define a new process, no process
> will ever be defined.
>
> We are trying to do something like that, any support or ideas will
> be helpful. The community needs to help to define this, and Walter
> already said that he will agree on what the community defines.
>
> See:
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Release_Process
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/ka5rv5$2k60$1...@digitalmars.com
I'd also like to add that if anyone has any ideas to improve or refine
the current proposed process, they should add their suggestions to the
talk page:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Talk:Release_Process
That way, the ideas won't get lost in ether after the forum threads die
off, and it keeps everything in one place instead of sprinkled
throughout multiple places in ancient forum threads.
T
--
When solving a problem, take care that you do not become part of the problem.
