Formal Review Process

[Jesse Phillips]

On Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 03:36:23 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> The whole _point_ of an official review is to review the API 
> that would end up in Phobos (the implementation is also 
> important but very much secondary).

Then what are you complaining about?

> If a submission's API isn't ready to be merged into Phobos 
> assuming that it passed the vote, then it isn't ready for 
> review.

The whole point of an official review is to decided if the API is 
ready to be merged into Phobos. A review manager can't make that 
decision, he brings it to the community and has them decided, "Is 
this API what we would like to see for handling ____?" and the 
community votes yes or no.

Phobos is lacking in functionality to support Jabob's submission. 
I think it is wrong to require that Phobos be fixed prior to a 
formal review. Since Steven brought up the API your taking issue 
with that, but I'm wondering about the Phobos maintainers views 
on the implementation details not being ready for Phobos.

I don't think an addition passing votes means that it must be 
included into Phobos right away (we don't have std.uni due to a 
failed test on BSD). As long as there is agreement on direction, 
for example it should use std.xml when we actually have a 
replacement for it, then things should be fine. And if there are 
many changes needed then a vote can be postponed until after the 
changes are complete and a review wouldn't be needed again unless 
the API changed.