On Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 18:23:19 UTC, Zach the Mystic
wrote:
On Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 06:56:52 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
You have clearly put a lot of effort in this. That makes me
very uneasy to repeat the same critique as earlier but, sadly,
it still all applies. This proposal tries to fix problems it
doesn't prove exist, doing so with solutions that are not
guranteed to help.
It also wrongly explains current process of inclusion into
Phobos in general and specifically std.experimental - being
probably one of more involved persons with Phobos review queue
I feel like this needs to be explained.
Considering all the discussion that happened during
std.experimental.logger I understand that we have settled with
pretty much this:
1) All Phobos proposals must go through std.experimental.logger
2) It must implement something generally desired in Phobos
3) Implementation is supposed to be at least stable enough to
not undergo a full rewrite after inclusion. Major API changes
are acceptable.
4) Before DMD/Phobos release is made existing packages that
feel stable can undergo a formal review for inclusion in
Phobos main package
It seems to me that number 2 is wrong. It doesn't matter what
is generally desired. The final say depends completely on the
leadership. Yes or No has to come from above. Or am I wrong
about this?
Well there is a voting process for getting libraries accepted
into Phobos, and Andrei and Walter are not the only ones who
vote. However, if you implement something that Andrei/Walter are
strongly opposed to, I suppose the vote could be vetoed.
