std.experimental Timeline

[Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 1 January 2016 at 20:10:22 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> Thus the original formal process was looking like this in my 
> head:
>     - initial voting only decides if proposed module is needed 
> in Phobos at all and if author looks competent enough to get it 
> finished
>     - any time release beta starts std.experimental module 
> author can ask review manager to start voting for final 
> inclusion
>     - this voting becomes true quality and stability control 
> point - reviewers/voters have to decide if API and 
> implementation are good enough to get frozen
>     - if voting fails, proposal is kept in std.experimental 
> until all issues are addressed and process repeats again

Can this be adopted formally?

> Idea of any "automatic" inclusion is very harmful because by 
> current standard std.experimental modules are not required to 
> have Phobos quality and can be very far from being good enough.

My proposal was based on the quality of std.logger and 
std.allocator when they were merged. I wasn't aware that modules 
that were unfinished could be merged into std.experimental.

> What makes things most complicated is that I don't do review 
> bookkeeping anymore and no one else (including Andrei himself) 
> have been willing to take control of the process since than.

This can be supplemented by people asking for review managers 
like they do for initial inclusion into std.experimental, no?