On Friday, November 18, 2016 12:10:53 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> On 11/18/16 11:09 AM, pineapple wrote:
> > On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 11:37:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> >> Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical feature
> >> would need to be include qualitatively new motivation/evidence of
> >> usefulness.
> >>
> >> Please follow the link for the full review text / rationale:
> >> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1002.md#review
> >
> > There should be no need for me to repeat the arguments against the
> > DIP process already made by others.
> You'd actually did us a huge favor if you did. I don't recall any
> standing requests, so links to past discussions would be helpful. This
> is a new process and Dicebot, myself, and Walter are very open to
> suggestions on how to improve it.

Yeah. This new process is a direct result of concerns and complaints about
the way we've handled DIPs historically and is a huge improvement. All of
the complaints that I remember seeing have to do with how DIPs have been
handled historically. We can't improve things if we don't know what the
problems are.

Regardless, I have to say that dicebot really deserves our thanks for
getting the DIP process to where it is now. The way it was going, DIPs were
almost always simply DOA, because they almost never went beyond the initial
newsgroup discussion. Now, we have an actual process that leads to a
resolution - even if it's not necessarily the resolution that the person
creating the DIP wants.

- Jonathan M Davis

Reply via email to