Proposal for std.path replacement

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Sunday 06 March 2011 17:35:32 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > However, are you indicating that we should
> > never have more than one module in review at a time? I see some benefit
> > in spreading them out, on the other hand, if we have multiple modules
> > ready for review, it seems like we could be slowing down progress
> > unnecessarily if we ruled that we could only ever have one module under
> > review at a time.
> 
> We should have only one review at a time. That way each review will be
> thorough. Boost does that, and I don't want to mess with success -
> particularly since the Boost community is larger too.

In the general case, that seems like a good idea. I just don't want to get in a 
situation where we have several modules in the queue which are ready for review 
but have to wait a month or two, because another module is under review. In the 
case of std.path, that could mean that we'll have to wait nearly a month to get 
it in. That will likely push it back a whole release. So, I have mixed feelings 
on the matter. In principle, having only one module in review at a time is a 
good idea, but I fear that it will slow down our progress unnecessarily.

Still, if that's what you want to do, we might as well go forward with it for 
now and review that decision if we end up with too many items on the back burner 
awaiting review. While there does appear to have been a bit of an uptick on 
possible modules for review of late, we haven't exactly had tons of them being 
put forth for review yet either.

- Jonathan M Davis