Tools should use the review process

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-12-28 18:28, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> That would, of course, be great.
>
> I can't stop mentioning again that we are having a severe deflation of
> reviewers. We are currently treating our contributors the worst way
> possible - with indifference.

I know and that sucks. But is that a reason to not have the same 
standard as for new Phobos modules?

> The oldest pull request is two years old:
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/398. There is
> activity on the new pull requests, but many old pull requests are just
> left unreviewed. This is especially painful for new or casual
> contributors, who make an attempt and are discouraged by the lack of
> care. Also, due to there being fewer attentive reviewers than
> contributors, some requests are pulled without sufficient review.

I agree. There are even older pull requests that are closed by the 
contributor due to lack of interest, either from the reviewers or/and 
contributors side https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3

> That makes me worried about adding another repo to the workload of
> reviewers - it means spreading an already insufficient resource even
> thinner. Of course the right solution to this is more review participation.

I know and agree, but I don't want the quality to be any less then what 
it is in the Phobos modules.

One think I noticed in the tools repository is that some tools are more 
focused towards the core team, like changed.d and some tools are for all 
developers like RDMD. The most important tools are of course those aimed 
to be used by all developers. Perhaps we can find a middle ground here. 
I'm thinking that Dub is a possible candidate for inclusion in the tools 
repository. That would be a perfect example for a tool aimed at to all 
developers and should go through a review process.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg