I am okay with that, just suggesting a method for future.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Sebastian Schelter < [email protected]> wrote: > I'd vote against a contrib area at the moment, because it would stand in > the way of unifying, shrinking and stabilizing the codebase. > > --sebastian > Am 13.04.2014 19:36 schrieb "Andrew Musselman" <[email protected] > >: > > > > > > On Apr 13, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Apr 13, 2014 10:22 AM, "Ted Dunning" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected] > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> +1, but more importantly, reject any new author who doesn't agree to > > >>> explicitly plegdge a multi-year support. > > >> > > >> I am a little bit negative about this requirement. My feeling is that > > it > > >> will wind up with accepting naive optimists (the ones we don't want) > and > > >> rejecting realists because they know that a true multi-year commitment > > is > > >> subject to buffeting by real-life. > > > I true. I guess i mean more along the criteria lines, not about how we > > make > > > the inference. I meant if we really had a way to make reliable > inference > > > here. It may well be the case there's no such way. Usually the first > good > > > sign is that contributors are sticking to their issue in the first > place > > > for some time. > > > > This is where a contrib or piggybank-style sandbox could help, so people > > could submit things "in probation" until they're proven out. >
