On Monday, July 16, 2012 02:07:13 deadalnix wrote: > On 16/07/2012 01:42, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Sunday, July 15, 2012 16:26:50 Walter Bright wrote: > >> Sigh. Half say we release too often, the other half not often enough. > > > > Which is actually one argument for going to a model where you have > > frequent > > minor releases which only contain bug fixes and less frequent major > > releases with the larger changes. You can never make everyone happy, but > > by doing so, you get the bug fixes faster for the folks complaining about > > the lack of frequent releases, and you get increased stability as far as > > the new stuff goes, because it doesn't come with every release. > > > > I'm only against the proposed versioning scheme because I think that we > > need to stabilize things better (e.g. actually have all of the features > > that TDPL lists fully implemented) before we move to it. But I fully > > support moving to this sort of scheme in the long run. It manages change > > much better, and I think that many, many existing projects have shown > > that it promotes stable code bases while still allowing for them to > > evolve as necessary. > > > > - Jonathan M Davis > > The proposed scheme is only a proposed scheme. Other solutions exist > that solve the problem, and if they better fit, why not ?
If someone has a better proposal, they should make it (though probably in a separate thread - this one's long enough as it is). I think that the basics of this proposal are good, and a lot of projects work that way. I just think that D needs to be more stable before we worry about having major and minor releases or stable and unstable branches. - Jonathan M Davis