On 2013-12-28 18:28, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
That would, of course, be great.
I can't stop mentioning again that we are having a severe deflation of
reviewers. We are currently treating our contributors the worst way
possible - with indifference.
I know and that sucks. But is that a reason to not have the same
standard as for new Phobos modules?
The oldest pull request is two years old:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/398. There is
activity on the new pull requests, but many old pull requests are just
left unreviewed. This is especially painful for new or casual
contributors, who make an attempt and are discouraged by the lack of
care. Also, due to there being fewer attentive reviewers than
contributors, some requests are pulled without sufficient review.
I agree. There are even older pull requests that are closed by the
contributor due to lack of interest, either from the reviewers or/and
contributors side https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3
That makes me worried about adding another repo to the workload of
reviewers - it means spreading an already insufficient resource even
thinner. Of course the right solution to this is more review participation.
I know and agree, but I don't want the quality to be any less then what
it is in the Phobos modules.
One think I noticed in the tools repository is that some tools are more
focused towards the core team, like changed.d and some tools are for all
developers like RDMD. The most important tools are of course those aimed
to be used by all developers. Perhaps we can find a middle ground here.
I'm thinking that Dub is a possible candidate for inclusion in the tools
repository. That would be a perfect example for a tool aimed at to all
developers and should go through a review process.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
