521 days, 22 hours, 7 minutes and 52 seconds...

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:33:32AM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 1/26/15 10:17 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> >But OTOH, if *this* is what it takes to contribute a new module to
> >Phobos, then it's no wonder we have trouble finding contributors...
> >Most would give up before they even try. I think there's an imbalance
> >here between the quality of existing Phobos modules vs. the quality
> >expected of future Phobos modules. Whatever happened to incremental
> >refinement??  Do we really expect flawless perfection before merging
> >to, of all places, std.*experimental*?
> 
> For a good while there was no std.experimental. Its introduction was
> partially motivated by the stalemate of this contribution. -- Andrei

And yet it still took so long to get it in?

IMO a better approach would have been, merge it into std.experimental
sooner, then submit followup PRs to std.experimental when the
implementation is found to be inferior. We already officially don't
guarantee non-breakage in std.experimental anyway, so we're not
constrained by release schedule or anything like that.

Plus, this way it's easier for other contributors to chime in to the
implementation (I know you can submit PRs against other PRs, but not
many people know that or have the patience to do that).

Once we've bashed it into shape in std.experimental to everyone's
satisfaction, we can move it into std proper.

If it takes just as much effort to get it into std.experimental as it
would take to get into std directly, I don't see the point of the
additional hassle introduced by std.experimental.


T

-- 
Acid falls with the rain; with love comes the pain.