On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 05:05:39 UTC, Tyro[17] wrote:
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out
of date.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.
Thanks for taking this on.
Monthly beta releases will be great. Please add them to the main
download page as they come out.
