On Monday, 25 February 2019 at 16:00:54 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Thorough feedback has been given, likely more so than for any
other submission. A summary for the recommended steps to take
can be found here:
https://forum.dlang.org/post/q2u429$1cmg$1...@digitalmars.com
It is not desirable to demand reviewers to do more work on the
review or to defend it. Acceptance by bullying is unlikely to
create good results. The target of work is squarely the
proposal itself.
Agreed.
Honestly, I am not impressed with the behavior of several members
here.
I understand that the rvalue DIP went through a long process,
that some people really wanted it to be accepted, and that it was
frustrating to wait so long only for it to be refused, but at
some point, you guys have to accept that the people in charge
refused it. They explained why they did, their reasons matched
concerns other users had, and they explained how to move the
proposal forward.
So again, I get that this is frustrating, but repeatedly
complaining and asking for an appeal and protesting about other
DIPs being accepted is *not* professional behavior. Reviewers are
entitled to refuse contributions for any reasons, and if a
reviewer rejects a proposal, too bad; you don't get to ask again
and again and complain and bring it up in every other thread
until they say yes.
Yes, this DIP was fast-tracked. Yes, this can feel unfair. And
yet, it makes sense that it was fast-tracked, because it fits a
priority of the project owners (C++ interoperability + reference
counting) and project owners are allowed to have priorities. It's
not like this DIP was rushed or has major vulnerabilities (the
"mutable copy constructor" thing is necessary for reference
counting).
