On 1/30/2015 10:21 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/30/15 9:57 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
If it wasn't a good idea, I don't have a problem with reverting it, but
what I'm wondering is, why raise the objection *now* rather than *months*
ago when the PR was sitting in the queue idle? From the discussion on
github, it appeared that the only objection against it was that Walter
didn't like the syntax. Where were the arguments about it being a
superfluous syntax change? Why raise the objections now rather than back
then?
I think we need to improve the process here. If a PR is not up to par or
is a bad idea, or approval from Walter/Andrei is required, can we pretty
please mark it as such beforehand? Rather than, as it would appear, let
it sit there until someone merges it, only to parachute in after the
fact to blast it to bits? (I know that's not the intention, but that's
what it looks like, since I've lost count of how many months this
particular PR was sitting in the queue with only minor nitpicks raised
against it and no sign of imminent doom like it's made out to be now.)
I agree we could and should improve the process here. The way it's been handled
has been quite inefficient.
You should know that I had pulled the request. So I was okay with it because I
non-critically assumed it wasn't doable within the current language. I was
obviously mistaken.
Such indecision/change of mind should not repeat often in the future. But the
fact is it did happen this time, which is frustrating to everyone involved.
Sometimes taking action stimulates thinking about it that never would happen
otherwise. I don't see how adding more process would have the same effect.
