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

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-02-15 21:25, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> We have enough problems when we _do_ review things thoroughly. But added the
> review process was one of the best things that we've done. The code quality of
> submissions has improved considerably. And as the writer of the first module to
> go through the process (std.datetime), I can testify that it helped
> considerably in improving it. What we ended up with was actually quite
> different in a number of places from what was originally implemented, and it's
> far better for it.
>
> The main thing that we may want to do differently in the future is to give new
> modules more of an incubation period where they're distributed with Phobos but
> are clearly marked as still being experimental so that we can make further
> modifications when they start actually getting used and issues crop up. And
> then after a few releases, we actually start treat its API as being as close
> to frozen as the rest of Phobos is. But regardless, we certainly don't want to
> lower the bar of admission. It's what's going to ensure that Phobos is a solid
> standard library.

I completely agree with that and I don't want to change anything of 
that. I just want you to broaden your minds a bit. Like why a third 
party library cannot be included.

BTW, have any of the tools in the tools repository been through a review 
process? I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't, just asking.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg