Good for you... Yes just imagine if I'd to get every fix through committers. I'd never get anything done here.
> On the subject of this thread: I did not imply that an "experimental" > package would allow sloppy or undocumented code or bypass unit testing. > All (the above) things being equal, the purpose would be to compare > alternative designs. > Perhaps I was not clear. Once again I repeat: I agree with the need for comments clean code and unit tests demonstrate the incremental utility of the contribution in the "experimental" package. I merely disagree that all contributors have the knowledge or the incentives to test "Everything (ideally)", reuse other Commons components, comment on "Everything", and in the case of CM analytically prove that the underlying math is sound, analyze when the code might fail, compare it with all other known methods, etc. So, if "half-baked" code (that solves a known problem) exists in the experimental packages, people who really need it to be reliably tested can patch in the tests and promote the code to "fully-baked" status. I hope you'll agree that as it stands, this makes CM capable of only solving a subset the mathematical problems of what it can solve with a more open policy. The argument for alternative designs of the API is great too because it allows people to comment on the API design as they use it. Cheers, Ajo.
