Experimental Phobos modules?

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 05-12-2012 23:42, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 05, 2012 22:52:09 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> Separate project? That kind of defeats the entire purpose: Making the
>> to-be-tested module readily available to everyone...
>
> It makes sense to me to have a separate package in Phobos for stuff that has
> already been reviewed and is planned to be put into Phobos but we want to make
> sure that it's 100% solid before committing to its API permanently. It does
> not make sense to me to other stuff in there. That would be endorsing stuff that
> isn't necessarily even close to a good enough state to go into Phobos. And how
> would you even decide what went in there? I really don't think that any kind
> of incubator project should go into Phobos-proper.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>

How do we decide, today, what goes into Phobos proper?

1. The community expresses some kind of common need.
2. There is universal agreement that the feature should be in Phobos.
3. Somebody takes the time to write a module for inclusion.
4. The module is submitted for review.
5. If review passes, the module is included; otherwise, it is refined 
and goto 4.

It's usually the community that drives the decisions about what's 
appropriate for Phobos and what isn't (i.e. at point 2). If we reach 
stage 3 in the aforementioned process, the module can be included in the 
staging package in Phobos proper for field testing if this is necessary 
before the initial review (this will obviously vary on a case-by-case 
basis).

If, after the staging period (say, 3 months AKA a release cycle), there 
is agreement that the module doesn't fit into Phobos after all (for 
whatever reason), it can simply be removed from the staging package. 
Otherwise, lessons learned from the staging period can be taken into 
account, the module refined, and submitted for review (point 4).

This seems like a perfectly sane model to me.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex at lycus.org
http://lycus.org