On Wednesday, 6 February 2013 at 18:47:35 UTC, Brad Anderson
wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2013 at 11:38:31 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
AFAIR there was proposal of a "future" meta package for
introducing new modules with time to adapt, similar to how it
is done in few other languages.
I really like the idea of an experimental section of phobos.
I've been thinking lately that the phobos review might be
improved by doing something more like this:
1. Proposal
2. Review and vote of overall usefulness and whether it meets a
certain quality requirement.
3. Module is placed in experimental section of phobos with
strong warnings that it is a trial module and could be removed
in a future update.
4. Following a set period of time after the module has been in
a public release another vote is held for actual inclusion.
5. If yea, move to its final resting place, if nay remove it
for the experimental section.
People are much more likely to actually test something if it's
right at their fingertips and they don't have to download it
and set up module paths and all of that. This isn't
particularly hard with D but I think the easier it is for
people to do, the better the reviews and module quality will
be. Also, giving a hard time period within which the module can
be modified freely because nobody expects it to be set in stone
would help a lot.
BA
Just one last idea I had I'd like to share before I forget about
it. I think module reviews should, in part, come in the form of
pull requests. High level reviews need discussion so they would
still be done here on the forums but simple documentation fixes
and other tweaks would be better handled by pull requests on the
module's home repo. Seems silly that people will type up all of
their suggestions and then the module author will slowly go
through the review responses looking for changes he should be
making when actually making the changes and sending a pull
request would take less time and as well as some of the huge
burden off of the author of the module.
BA
