On 11/13/13, 11:30 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 11/14/13, Brad Anderson <e...@gnuk.net> wrote:
6 months between releases means a regression that was introduced
in the latest version requires you to wait another 6 months for
the fix which means you are running a version that is a year out
of date.
6 months is ridiculously long. The changelog itself will have to span
pages. And because a lot of people do not use DMD-head we'll end up
with a ton of regressions that are only caught after a release is
made. And people who want an important fix will have to wait 6 months
for a release. New library features or modules will only be properly
tested after a release, so that means potentially waiting 6 months
with very little feedback.
IMO 6 months is unacceptably long. We're not steering an oil rig here,
D is supposed to be a speedboat.
It's been approximately six months since the release of 2.063 (alright
five+: May 28 to Nov 5). I don't think too many of us lost sleep over
that. There is nothing ridiculously long about six months.
I doubt your change log would be much longer because of time elapsed.
Rather, it would be longer because more people had time to work with the
betas and discover the problems contained therein and subsequently got
them fixed.
What I am proposing is that you get a package every month. That should
be enough time to ferry out any regression that may crop up. Use the
betas on a monthly basis and you get to ride the bullet train.
--
Andrew Edwards
--------------------
http://www.akeron.co
auto getAddress() {
string location = "@", period = ".";
return ("info" ~ location ~ "afidem" ~ period ~ "org");
}
