Managing the review queue

[Walter Bright]

On 3/28/2011 12:18 PM, dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 at digitalmars.com)'s article
>> A further issue with the review process is that the bulk of people won't look at
>> something until it is actually released. I think the only way to deal with this
>> is to be willing to correct deficiencies found after release.
>
> Please clarify "release".  If you mean making the code and documentation public
> and conveniently accessible, that's the point of the review process.  If you mean
> actually including it with the DMD distribution, then maybe we need an "incubator"
> package as others have suggested.  Things would get in incubator after abbreviated
> review.  While in incubator we'd make no guarantees about their stability or even
> their continued inclusion.  The "real" review would take place over a release
> cycle or two, while the module was in incubator.  After each release cycle, we'd
> make a three-way decision.  A module can:
>
> 1.  Be declared stable and promoted to std.
>
> 2.  Be declared not worthwhile and removed.
>
> 3.  Kept in incubator pending further review and improvements.

I have thought in the past about putting such modules into another package, call 
it "foo" for lack of a better name, and put it in the dmd distribution. If the 
package pans out in real life, then move it to std. So, yes, I think your idea 
is a good one.