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

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 08:30:58PM +0000, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> We couldn't merge it into std.experimental before because you have
> stated that even std.experimental modules shouldn't have a breaking
> changes normally. It was 2 reviews ago.

Yeah, this part didn't make much sense to me. While I agree that we
shouldn't be accepting random junk into std.experimental, the bar
shouldn't be set so high that legitimate initial revisions of a new
module are also excluded. Otherwise, what's the point of even having
std.experimental as opposed to merging straight into std?


> Now you have reconsidered, which is understandable considering how
> long has it been taking, but pretending that was intended to work that
> way does not make you look good :(
> 
> PS I was in favor for very lax initial requirements for experimental
> packages for this very reason.

+1.

And we should not forget that if something in std.experimental continues
to disappoint, there's always the option of dropping it altogether,
since we don't guarantee non-breakage on std.experimental. So there's no
reason the bar should be as high as it is right now.


T

-- 
They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work. -- Russian saying