On Monday, 18 August 2014 at 20:43:44 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: > On Monday, 18 August 2014 at 19:23:14 UTC, Dicebot wrote: >> I have a mixed feelings about this release. It has some really cool features and is good to finally see live. But it has taken ages and there are still many open regressions ( >> >> I don't know if we can do anything better about it. I have a mixed feelings about this release. It has some really cool features and is good to finally see live. But it has taken ages and there are still many open regressions ( http:// wiki.dl ang.org/ Beta_Testing ). And stuff like https:// issues. dlang.org/ show_bug. cgi?id= 11946 is just small disaster - complicated by the fact that no one but Kenji seems to be able neither to fix it nor even revert it.I don't know if we can do anything better about it. > > I agree, I am also surprised that 2.066 was released despite the regressions. I uncovered a few just by accidentally instructing someone on #d to build their project against git HEAD. Most of the regressions were found in his project's dub dependencies - libraries published on code.dlang.org. > > I was thinking of trying to see if more projects on the dub registry failed to build with the 2.066 RC once the current round of regressions was resolved. > > How is it decided when it's time to cut off a new release? Do we have two RCs and that's it? On Monday, 18 August 2014 at 19:23:14 UTC, Dicebot wrote:I agree, I am also surprised that 2.066 was released despite the regressions. I uncovered a few just by accidentally instructing someone on #d to build their project against git HEAD. Most of the regressions were found in his project's dub dependencies - libraries published on code.dlang.org.I was thinking of trying to see if more projects on the dub registry failed to build with the 2.066 RC once the current round of regressions was resolved.How is it decided when it's time to cut off a new release? Do we have two RCs and that's it?