On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 08:30:58PM +0000, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote: > We couldn't merge it into std.experimental before because you have > stated that even std.experimental modules shouldn't have a breaking > changes normally. It was 2 reviews ago.
Yeah, this part didn't make much sense to me. While I agree that we shouldn't be accepting random junk into std.experimental, the bar shouldn't be set so high that legitimate initial revisions of a new module are also excluded. Otherwise, what's the point of even having std.experimental as opposed to merging straight into std? > Now you have reconsidered, which is understandable considering how > long has it been taking, but pretending that was intended to work that > way does not make you look good :( > > PS I was in favor for very lax initial requirements for experimental > packages for this very reason. +1. And we should not forget that if something in std.experimental continues to disappoint, there's always the option of dropping it altogether, since we don't guarantee non-breakage on std.experimental. So there's no reason the bar should be as high as it is right now. T -- They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work. -- Russian saying