www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - DMD 2.1.0?

reply "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Given:
- The many differences between dmd 2.059 and 2.060alpha, and the 
amount of time passed since the release of 2.059;
- The fact that there are some 2.060alpha regressions to be fixed 
still, so dmd 2.060 is not coming out tomorrow;
- And the recent idea of introducing stable dmd releases that 
include many patches despite not being really a v.2.061 (see the 
"Stable D Releases!" in D.announce);
- That I think a "languageNumber.majorVersion.revision" numbering 
scheme is better, more widespread and more useful (where 
"languageNumber" is 1, 2 and maybe 3, a change in "majorVersion" 
means something is changed in the language and this calls for 
changes in user code and this is the point where the stable D 
releases must include all the patches of the main trunk, and 
"revision" means just bug fixes and tiny backwards-compatible 
enhancements that are not necessarily included in the stable D 
release) (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning ).

Then I suggest to call the next release dmd  2.1.0 :-)

And maybe in such 2.1.0 it's better to deprecate the features 
marked as "future" here:
http://dlang.org/deprecate.html

In a Bugzilla entry (6277) I have also suggested another idea 
(maybe fit for dmd 2.1.0 still) to improve the evolvability of 
the D language: beside using -d (deprecated features) another way 
to face those problems is to use an idea from Python, a switch 
like "-future" that activates language features that will be 
introduced in future (this also means the "-property" flag gets 
moved into "-future" and removed, so the total amount of dmd 
flags doesn't change).

Bye,
bearophile
Jul 23 2012
next sibling parent "Adam Wilson" <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:30:21 -0700, bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com>  
wrote:


 Given:
 - The many differences between dmd 2.059 and 2.060alpha, and the amount  
 of time passed since the release of 2.059;
 - The fact that there are some 2.060alpha regressions to be fixed still,  
 so dmd 2.060 is not coming out tomorrow;
 - And the recent idea of introducing stable dmd releases that include  
 many patches despite not being really a v.2.061 (see the "Stable D  
 Releases!" in D.announce);
 - That I think a "languageNumber.majorVersion.revision" numbering scheme  
 is better, more widespread and more useful (where "languageNumber" is 1,  
 2 and maybe 3, a change in "majorVersion" means something is changed in  
 the language and this calls for changes in user code and this is the  
 point where the stable D releases must include all the patches of the  
 main trunk, and "revision" means just bug fixes and tiny  
 backwards-compatible enhancements that are not necessarily included in  
 the stable D release) (See:  
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning ).

 Then I suggest to call the next release dmd  2.1.0 :-)

 And maybe in such 2.1.0 it's better to deprecate the features marked as  
 "future" here:
 http://dlang.org/deprecate.html

 In a Bugzilla entry (6277) I have also suggested another idea (maybe fit  
 for dmd 2.1.0 still) to improve the evolvability of the D language:  
 beside using -d (deprecated features) another way to face those problems  
 is to use an idea from Python, a switch like "-future" that activates  
 language features that will be introduced in future (this also means the  
 "-property" flag gets moved into "-future" and removed, so the total  
 amount of dmd flags doesn't change).

 Bye,
 bearophile


This may pose an issue to the dlang-stable project ... Particularly I  
think we all are still trying to figure out just how it will work. At this  
point the dlang-stable repos are just forks of D from June 16th, it's  
essentially just a snapshot of 2.060. Our plan was to reset the repos to  
2.060 to clean out any mistakes made during the learning process and then  
use 2.060 as a the base point.

After that a 2.1.61 makes a LOT of sense, at least for dlang-stable. :-)

However, if you want to make the argument that the June 16 snapshot of  
2.060 is a good enough starting point, i'm all ears. :-)

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
Jul 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "anonymous" <anonymous example.com> writes:
On Monday, 23 July 2012 at 16:30:23 UTC, bearophile wrote:

 Given:


[...]

 - That I think a "languageNumber.majorVersion.revision" 
 numbering scheme is better, more widespread and more useful 
 (where "languageNumber" is 1, 2 and maybe 3, a change in 
 "majorVersion" means something is changed in the language and 
 this calls for changes in user code and this is the point where 
 the stable D releases must include all the patches of the main 
 trunk, and "revision" means just bug fixes and tiny 
 backwards-compatible enhancements that are not necessarily 
 included in the stable D release) (See: 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning ).

 Then I suggest to call the next release dmd  2.1.0 :-)


[...]

It's not majorVersion that is missing from the current scheme,
it's revision.
There already was a dmd 2.1.0:
http://dlang.org/changelog.html#new2_001
Jul 23 2012
parent "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
anonymous:


 It's not majorVersion that is missing from the current scheme,
 it's revision.
 There already was a dmd 2.1.0:
 http://dlang.org/changelog.html#new2_001


60 major versions is a lot, but maybe you are right.
Then what's a good numbering for the next dmd? Maybe DMD 2.60.0 ?

Bye,
bearophile
Jul 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 7/23/12, bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote:

 - The many differences between dmd 2.059 and 2.060alpha


Is there a changelog somewhere? The DMD changelog seems to be a year
old on github.
Jul 23 2012
parent reply "Jesse Phillips" <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 23 July 2012 at 18:00:47 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

 On 7/23/12, bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote:

 - The many differences between dmd 2.059 and 2.060alpha


 Is there a changelog somewhere? The DMD changelog seems to be a 
 year
 old on github.


The change log is on the website.

http://dlang.org/changelog.html

and the github repos all use there own dd file. eg

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/blob/master/changelog.dd
Jul 23 2012
parent reply "Jesse Phillips" <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 24 July 2012 at 02:11:54 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:

 On Monday, 23 July 2012 at 18:00:47 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

 On 7/23/12, bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote:

 - The many differences between dmd 2.059 and 2.060alpha


 Is there a changelog somewhere? The DMD changelog seems to be 
 a year
 old on github.


 The change log is on the website.

 http://dlang.org/changelog.html

 and the github repos all use there own dd file. eg

 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/blob/master/changelog.dd


Ok, I suppose dmd's log is over on d-programming-language.org

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org/blob/master/changelog.dd
Jul 23 2012
parent reply Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 7/24/12, Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> wrote:

 Ok, I suppose dmd's log is over on d-programming-language.org

 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org/blob/master/changelog.dd


Hmm I'm looking for the 2.060 changelog, I'd like to know what these
big changes are that OP is talking about.
Jul 23 2012
parent "Adam Wilson" <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:45:40 -0700, Andrej Mitrovic  
<andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote:


 On 7/24/12, Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> wrote:

 Ok, I suppose dmd's log is over on d-programming-language.org

 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org/blob/master/changelog.dd


 Hmm I'm looking for the 2.060 changelog, I'd like to know what these
 big changes are that OP is talking about.


They haven't happened yet, the idea is to push out 2.060 before they come.

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
Jul 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 7/23/12, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote:

 On 7/23/12, bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote:

 - The many differences between dmd 2.059 and 2.060alpha


 Is there a changelog somewhere? The DMD changelog seems to be a year
 old on github.


Also I'm getting a JS error on the changelog page:

"Hyphenator.js says:

An Error ocurred:
Not enough arguments"
Jul 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Andrej Mitrovic <
andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote:


 On 7/23/12, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote:

 On 7/23/12, bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote:

 - The many differences between dmd 2.059 and 2.060alpha


 Is there a changelog somewhere? The DMD changelog seems to be a year
 old on github.


 Also I'm getting a JS error on the changelog page:

 "Hyphenator.js says:

 An Error ocurred:
 Not enough arguments"


I fixed that in a pull last night.  Looks like Andrei has deployed it.  It
should be gone now. If not, let Andrei or myself know (and what browser you
are using).

Regards,
Brad Anderson
Jul 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrea Fontana <nospam example.com> writes:
Il giorno lun, 23/07/2012 alle 18.30 +0200, bearophile ha scritto:



 [...]
 Then I suggest to call the next release dmd  2.1.0 :-)
 [...]



+1
Jul 24 2012
prev sibling parent "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
It seems the next version will be named 1.060 still:

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/500E674B.1050709 digitalmars.com

Bye,
bearophile
Jul 24 2012