On 11 December 2011 10:13, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
On 12/11/11 12:55 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org>  wrote in message
news:jc0fnt$13pu$1@digitalmars.com...
On 12/10/11 2:14 PM, Andrew Wiley wrote:

^^
I agree. Postponing the current release doesn't really do anything but
frustrate the people that depend on recent changes. Setting a goal for
the next release accomplishes the same goals without the added
frustration.

+1

I do strongly support the new prioritization...but *after* we release 2.057.
The thing's already in the middle of the doorway, there's no point in not
getting it the rest of the way out the door..

This is a done deal now. I would like to thank Kenji and Walter for so quickly and resolutely acting on my suggestions.


There are good ways of addressing that. We can delay the release by only a
few days and fix long-standing and extremely important issues. This is not
only about doing the expected/reasonable thing here, but breaking a
pattern and making a statement.

If, as you suggest, there's some big things that can be fixed in a short
amount of time, then we can just finish 2.057, and have a short and sweet
dev cycle for 2.058. The only thing "breaking a pattern and making a
statement" does for anyone is make it look like we've been possessed by
Steve Jobs's ghost.

More rigor and perfectionism ethic wouldn't hurt us one bit. Bugs, underdefined and underimplemented features, and an attitude "if it has a workaround it's less of a bug" are our main liabilities right now.

Don't forget incomplete documentation! ;)