On Friday, 9 June 2023 at 08:05:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/8/2023 7:56 AM, GrimMaple wrote:
> The truth is, I've been nagging about LTS branches, and I've been nagging directly to Mike about it, and it went nowhere.
It's not about not caring about it. It's just that I can't see how it would be effective. Making LTS versions balkanizes the language into multiple languages, which will play hell with 3rd party library maintenance.
Clearly, the deprecation scheme is not serving our users well. We'll have to find a better way.
On Thursday, 15 June 2023 at 07:39:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> It's come up before many times, it's not like we haven't considered it.
We actually do have it - we do major releases, and point releases.
Into the point releases go regression fixes and critical bug fixes.
The trouble, though, is we simply don't have the staff to do a whole
lot with this.
I understand this could be division (or maybe also to say repetition) to the core/language developers if we introduce LTS in D. I mean, if there was a security vulnerability that was fixed, it would need to be replicated on the active LTS releases, etc.
However, I do not see why this would cause a division for 3rd Party Libraries - as they should be targeting their releases towards LTS, anyway.
I think enough content has been voiced about LTS and, generally, appear to be on a similar wavelength by those in favour of it. Certainly enough for it to be discussed in a near future meeting with the core members.
I understand there might not be enough staff at this time and other factors. I get it. I still believe this can spark more discussion and, potentally, form a strategy on how it could work if we had X, Y and Z.
If a plan is presented and is understood on what needs to be done + the work involved, maybe someone will step up and get involved.
Thanks.