== Quote from Walter Bright ([email protected])'s article > A further issue with the review process is that the bulk of people won't look > at > something until it is actually released. I think the only way to deal with > this > is to be willing to correct deficiencies found after release.
Please clarify "release". If you mean making the code and documentation public and conveniently accessible, that's the point of the review process. If you mean actually including it with the DMD distribution, then maybe we need an "incubator" package as others have suggested. Things would get in incubator after abbreviated review. While in incubator we'd make no guarantees about their stability or even their continued inclusion. The "real" review would take place over a release cycle or two, while the module was in incubator. After each release cycle, we'd make a three-way decision. A module can: 1. Be declared stable and promoted to std. 2. Be declared not worthwhile and removed. 3. Kept in incubator pending further review and improvements.
