On Wednesday, 19 March 2014 at 16:35:15 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
Users who see find it in Phobos will be confused about how
experimental exactly it is and what to expect from it.
Developers will be confused about what is expected from them
maintenance-wise starting from this point and what to do with
reported bugs / issues.
Why was that never a problem for OpenGL ?
I know nothing about OpenGL but it was (and is) huge problem for
Java.
Don't put stuff which is naturally bleeding edge into
scheduled controlled distributions. dub has special category
for Phobos proposals, we need to better popularize it.
That much is true. Last time I checked it wasn't there. Then
again everyone can add categories there. I added two myself.
Everyone can tag their package as Phobos candidate.
There is no point in implementing moderated category until it is
not abused. If it will attract abuse, we will add moderation.
But I cannot imagine random packages on dub getting the same
exposure as modules included in Phobos.
The problem is exactly that those are random package right now.
Instead those should be cleanly visible in code.dlang.org
interface and possibly also linked from dlang.org main page.
Linked from distributed Phobos documentation. Everything should
beg user to go and try it.
Personally I avoid dub, so to that end I'm probably biased.
I avoid it too but it is my personal problem to deal with. dub is
de-facto standard in D tool chain and I am pretty sure eventually
will be distributed with dmd.
