Formal Review Process

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 01:06:07 Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Monday, 10 June 2013 at 21:40:58 UTC, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
> > A quick first look for now:
> > 
> > In general I think that you should clone phobos and merge
> > orange into std.serialize in order for us to see how it really
> > fits into phobos.
> > 
> > As such I think it feels more like a RFC than formal review
> > because it couldn't possible go into phobos in its current
> > state even if we ignored all comments from the this list.
> 
> While this is true and it would be my responsibility to help fit
> Orange into Phobos, there is no clear answer and is something
> community needs to give input into.
> 
> This project has already been through RFC and was not provided
> input during the "Ready for Review" announcement. So I have taken
> my self appointed position to push this into the formal platform
> were people will be required to voice failures they see for
> inclusion into Phobos.
> 
> Thank you for continuing the feedback, I will consider this
> particular state when deciding to call for a vote, remember that
> you can vote No and explain the hold up, if the state at voting
> is not something you feel can/should be included.

I thought that it was clear that anything being submitted for review for 
inclusion in Phobos actually had to be in a state where a pull request for 
Phobos could be created for it. We certainly can't possibly vote it in if it's 
not in such a state, because we wouldn't even know what it would look like 
when it was merged in.

- Jonathan M Davis