Std Phobos 2 and logging library?

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org)'s article
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > Christopher Wright, el 10 de abril a las 16:18 me escribiste:
> >> BLS wrote:
> >>> Zz wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Are there any plans for a logging library in Std Phobos 2.0?
> >>>>
> >>>> Zz
> >>> Why ask. Phobos is a one man show. In other word, Phobos is an ego-lib.
> >>> In case that you want something special, ask the tango folks. ( beside,
> >>> logging is avail. there for quite a while)
> >>> Björn
> >> It's at least a five-person show: Andrei, Walter, Sean Kelly, braddr,
> >> and Don have committed to Phobos svn in the past two weeks. Random other
> >> people have donated code to it.
> >>
> >> Granted, Sean probably only concerns himself with druntime
> >> compatibility, and Don is probably mostly concerned with std.math and
> >> related modules.
> >
> > And Braddr just made a documentation fix, and Walter only commits
> > portability stuff and an occasional bug fix now and then, so...
> >
> > Yes, it really looks like a five-person show =)
> >
> > I think most work in Phobos now it's done by Andrei, there are other
> > *collaborators* (the four other you named plus people sending patches), but
> > it looks like Andrei's show to me. This is not necessarily bad, it's
> > definitely  better than before, when it was Walter's show, now at least he
> > can dedicate his efforts in the compiler and language and Phobos is having
> > a lot more attention.
> We'll be very happy to integrate credited contributions from anyone, and
> to give dsource.org write access to serious participants. What I think
> right now stands in the way of large participation to Phobos is that we
> all still learn the ropes of D2; the possibilities are dizzying and we
> haven't quite zeroed in on a particular style. Nonetheless, as it's been
> noticed I'm always summoning help from this group. So again, if you feel
> you want to contribute with ideas and/or code, don't hesitate.
> Andrei

I think part of the problem (this is not a criticism, just a statement of fact, as
I believe it to have overall been a good thing) is that you've evolved Phobos so
fast lately that noone else can keep up with what the heck is going on.  While you
appear to have done a great job on the new Phobos and things appear to be settling
down now, in the interim trying to figure out what was and wasn't going to be
completely turned upside down by ranges and Phobos 2 made contributing small
improvements and new features rather difficult.

I've definitely worked on projects like this before, where I was the lead person
and they were evolving faster than I could keep other people up to date, etc.
This gap can be frustrating, but sometimes it's necessary to allow a project to
evolve freely.