On Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 08:16:50 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 3/13/14, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
I didn't even know about this client before the breakage.
I'm really getting tired of this argument. An unknown client
(which
you still haven't named, so as far as I'm concerned it might as
well
be just a reddit troll) comes out of the blue, complains about
some
small breakage which can *easily* be fixed in a point release,
and
suddenly that has to affect the decision on final by default.
Also,
the client hasn't bothered to file a bug report, and 2.056 has
been
released for a few weeks (nevermind the massively long beta
cycle).
Why not do the obvious and just roll out the point release with
the
std.json fixes?
I only see this as getting worse, however. I mean the whole
idea of
client X deciding to ring up Andrei or Walter, NDAs to not
disclose
their name, and make an executive decision on some
language/phobos
feature.
Meanwhile, who's fixing the bugs and implementing features?
People who
are not on a payroll. So I think we the community and the
developers
have a right for a vote.
To be honest, whether or not the client really exists is
irrelevant. We can't just keep making large breaking changes.
It's not just big companies that are effected either. Every
breaking change potentially breaks some open source library. If
that library is no longer maintained then it just stops working,
and no one knows until a user comes along and tries to compile
it. When it fails to compile, most users will just assume it
doesn't work and move on. If that library was critical to their
project then we probably lose a user.
As for the release time and beta: most people aren't on the
forums daily. They don't know this is happening. The people on
this forum are not representative D users.
I occasionally run Python scripts at work. I can assure you I
have absolutely no idea when Python is going to get an update and
I certainly have no idea when beta tests periods are being run!
