On 3/28/2011 12:18 PM, dsimcha wrote:
== 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.
I have thought in the past about putting such modules into another package, call
it "foo" for lack of a better name, and put it in the dmd distribution. If the
package pans out in real life, then move it to std. So, yes, I think your idea
is a good one.
