What's missing from Phobos for Orbit (package manager)

Jacob Carlborg doob at me.com
Fri Feb 15 00:47:00 PST 2013


On 2013-02-15 07:44, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> 15-Feb-2013 01:49, Jacob Carlborg пишет:
>> On 2013-02-14 21:33, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Regardless I think reducing dependencies is the important for inclusion
>>> of any new component into the "D core".
>>
>> In general I think that the D community should embrace all
>> developers/contributors and existing libraries.
>
> Not talking about your stuff in particular but in general - hell no.
> There is a line between accepting everything just because we can't lose
> the chance (hence current std.xml, std.json and other crappy stuff) and
> accepting decent stuff that was specifically following current Phobos
> idoms, was reviewed, etc. The latter puts quite a strain on the
> contributor and in the end should guarantee the quality of addition (and
> commitment to maintain it).
>
> That being said once package manager is there tested and solid 3-rd
> party libs will flow. (tested & solid simply because of greater exposure
> factor)
>
>> It cannot afford to
>> loose contributions for petty things like this.
>
> I'd say if contributor can't be bothered to follow conventions and deal
> with the constraints imposed, just let him go. Coherency is all
> important in the core part of pretty much anything.

If you want to create a new zip and xml modules even though there 
already exist perfectly good and working ones, go ahead. I don't want to 
waste time on that.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list