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

[tn via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 26 January 2015 at 20:35:31 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> On 1/26/15 12:30 PM, Dicebot 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Now I remember. I admit I was wrong. -- Andrei

I thought the idea was that there should be no _known_ pending
breaking changes when mergin into std.experimental. Thus
std.experimental would be for fixing problems that are found when
the package is actually used. Breaking changes for fixing those
would be perfectly fine.

1. review => if problems found => fix all known problems and
repeat the review
2. once everyting seems ok in review => merge to std.experimental
3. if a new problem requiring a breaking change is found => fix it
4. once no new problems have been found for a while => seems ok
=> merge to std
5. if a new problem requiring a breaking change is found => can't
fix it, maybe try to cirmumvent it somehow etc. (no breaking
changes unless it's critical)