Tools should use the review process

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 12/28/13 6:16 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Since we stared with a review process for adding new modules to Phobos
> around eight new tools have been added without any review process
> similar to the one used for Phobos modules. They were only reviewed in
> pull requests.
>
> Some of these are minor tools/scripts but there are larger tools as
> well, like RDMD (added before the release process) and DustMire (added
> after the release process).
>
> I think that new tools should use the same review process just as new
> modules for Phobos do. What do you think?

That would, of course, be great.

I can't stop mentioning again that we are having a severe deflation of 
reviewers. We are currently treating our contributors the worst way 
possible - with indifference.

The oldest pull request is two years old: 
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/398. There is 
activity on the new pull requests, but many old pull requests are just 
left unreviewed. This is especially painful for new or casual 
contributors, who make an attempt and are discouraged by the lack of 
care. Also, due to there being fewer attentive reviewers than 
contributors, some requests are pulled without sufficient review.

That makes me worried about adding another repo to the workload of 
reviewers - it means spreading an already insufficient resource even 
thinner. Of course the right solution to this is more review participation.


Andrei