On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 at 11:01:13 UTC, Robert Klotzner
wrote:
In fact I am very happy with D's feature set, but as long
as D is
alive there will be improvements from time to time and having a
way of
testing them thoroughly, can't really harm the language. But I
don't
know. You and other people more involved in development are of
course
better judges of usefulness of this proposal. Basically I was
just
curious why it is not done this way.
It was, it created the D1 and D2 split. So to do it again, even
if we don't call it D3 and just say it is experimental, it is
still the same split.
As for testing the changes going in thoroughly. All source is
public and can be compiled and verified by anyone at any time for
any project they have access to. There is a Beta released prior
to the official release, it is a time for and one to speak up of
regressions and other issues before the release is finalized.
Extending this period isn't going to add much value to having
strong verification.
D2 is at/near/moving toward being stable so this is a good system
at this time. Not to say it can't be improved, but the
improvement will really be viable when more people see the
stability and begin participating and adding to the quantity of
verification that regressions are not being introduced.
