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.
