What's missing from Phobos for Orbit (package manager)

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, February 15, 2013 08:46:39 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Sure, as long as the admittance barrier stays high. One the worst things
> we've done was to allow contributions to the standard library without
> due review.

We have enough problems when we _do_ review things thoroughly. But added the 
review process was one of the best things that we've done. The code quality of 
submissions has improved considerably. And as the writer of the first module to 
go through the process (std.datetime), I can testify that it helped 
considerably in improving it. What we ended up with was actually quite 
different in a number of places from what was originally implemented, and it's 
far better for it.

The main thing that we may want to do differently in the future is to give new 
modules more of an incubation period where they're distributed with Phobos but 
are clearly marked as still being experimental so that we can make further 
modifications when they start actually getting used and issues crop up. And 
then after a few releases, we actually start treat its API as being as close 
to frozen as the rest of Phobos is. But regardless, we certainly don't want to 
lower the bar of admission. It's what's going to ensure that Phobos is a solid
standard library.

- Jonathan M Davis