www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - D's timeline

reply Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
I'm working on my presentation for the conference and I'm running out of time. 
I'd like to ask you 
guys for some help locating a few dates:

1) When 0.x transitioned from alpha to beta
2) Was there a beta to release candidate transition for 0.x -> 1.x? If so,
when?  I have the 1.00 
release date, that one is easy.
3) When did the 2.x series switch similarly (alpha, beta, rc)?
4) When were the various platforms added to the release bundles?


Any other events you consider major in the history of D.  I've already got a
bunch, but have room to 
include more and would hate to miss anything big.  We each have our own view on
what's important and 
I won't promise to include ones mentioned, but I'd love to have more to
consider including.

Please send them directly to me (braddr puremagic.com) rather than follow up in
the news group to 
avoid a long and not really appropriate for the announce group discussion.

Thanks,
Brad
May 20 2014
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 20/05/14 10:19, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 I'm working on my presentation for the conference and I'm running out of
 time.  I'd like to ask you guys for some help locating a few dates:

 1) When 0.x transitioned from alpha to beta
 2) Was there a beta to release candidate transition for 0.x -> 1.x? If
 so, when?  I have the 1.00 release date, that one is easy.
 3) When did the 2.x series switch similarly (alpha, beta, rc)?
 4) When were the various platforms added to the release bundles?


Here is what I found out from the changelog:

* Linux 0.63 [1]
* OS X 32bit 1.040 [2], 2.025 [8]
* FreeBSD 2.053 [3], 1.043 [4]
* OS X 64bit 2.053 [3], 1.072 [5]
* Linux 64bit 2.052 [6], 1.067 [7]

[1] http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog1.html#new063
[2] http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html#new1_040
[3] http://dlang.org/changelog.html#new2_053
[4] http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html#new1_043
[5] http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html#new1_072
[6] http://dlang.org/changelog.html#new2_052
[7] http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html#new1_067
[8] http://dlang.org/changelog.html#new2_025

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
May 20 2014
prev sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 5/20/2014 4:19 AM, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 I'm working on my presentation for the conference and I'm running out of
 time.  I'd like to ask you guys for some help locating a few dates:

 1) When 0.x transitioned from alpha to beta
 2) Was there a beta to release candidate transition for 0.x -> 1.x? If
 so, when?  I have the 1.00 release date, that one is easy.
 3) When did the 2.x series switch similarly (alpha, beta, rc)?


There weren't really any alpha/beta/rc states for any of that. Neither 
formally nor informally. Back then, everything was all just "if it's 
good enough for you, then go ahead and use it". The stability was more 
of an ever-progressing (and occasionally regressing) gradient.

Also, 0.x -> 1.x was only an arbitrary "line in the sand". Version 1.000 
was just simply the name of the next regular release after 0.1xx 
(whatever the "xx" would have been, don't recall offhand). The 1.000 
moniker was more PR than technical.

Similarly, version 2.000 was just simply the next "mainline" release 
after it was decided to fork off a separate "no more breaking changes" 
branch (which is what 1.x *became* when 2.000 was released).

It was all definitely very much *not* "semantic versioning".
May 20 2014
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 20/05/14 20:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 There weren't really any alpha/beta/rc states for any of that. Neither
 formally nor informally. Back then, everything was all just "if it's
 good enough for you, then go ahead and use it". The stability was more
 of an ever-progressing (and occasionally regressing) gradient.

 Also, 0.x -> 1.x was only an arbitrary "line in the sand". Version 1.000
 was just simply the name of the next regular release after 0.1xx
 (whatever the "xx" would have been, don't recall offhand). The 1.000
 moniker was more PR than technical.

 Similarly, version 2.000 was just simply the next "mainline" release
 after it was decided to fork off a separate "no more breaking changes"
 branch (which is what 1.x *became* when 2.000 was released).

 It was all definitely very much *not* "semantic versioning".


Yeah, and it still continues with the same model. Although, we have had 
a few alphas and betas of individual releases.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
May 20 2014