On 2013-02-15 21:25, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
We have enough problems when we _do_ review things thoroughly. But added the
review process was one of the best things that we've done. The code quality of
submissions has improved considerably. And as the writer of the first module to
go through the process (std.datetime), I can testify that it helped
considerably in improving it. What we ended up with was actually quite
different in a number of places from what was originally implemented, and it's
far better for it.
The main thing that we may want to do differently in the future is to give new
modules more of an incubation period where they're distributed with Phobos but
are clearly marked as still being experimental so that we can make further
modifications when they start actually getting used and issues crop up. And
then after a few releases, we actually start treat its API as being as close
to frozen as the rest of Phobos is. But regardless, we certainly don't want to
lower the bar of admission. It's what's going to ensure that Phobos is a solid
standard library.
I completely agree with that and I don't want to change anything of
that. I just want you to broaden your minds a bit. Like why a third
party library cannot be included.
BTW, have any of the tools in the tools repository been through a review
process? I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't, just asking.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
