On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:53:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/15/16 9:34 PM, tsbockman wrote:
Why didn't you make your design requirements known at any
earlier point
in this process? If you are ultimate gate keeper for Phobos
(as you seem
to be), you ought to make your requirements known *before* the
implementation is finished.
Apologies about that. I've done a bit of spelunking to see what
happened. Indeed the first reference to SafeInt is on a forum
post on 6/7/2015, followed immediately by
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/3389 which entailed a long
discussion.
You first posted about checkedint here on 6/30/2015, in a large
thread.
At that time, I had the std.allocator review going on (started
on 6/11/2015), a newborn baby, and a move across the continent
to worry about (which happened at the end of June). It is
entirely possible I just missed that discussion, or more likely
saw it and had no meaningful input at the time. There has been
a gap in forum posts with "checkedint" in the title between
7/3/2015 and 6/7/2016,
Numerous other mentions were made of this project in various
contexts on the forums, in GitHub pull requests, and on the bug
tracker - including discussions in which you participated. 'posts
with "checkedint" in the title' is too narrow of a search filter.
so it's not like there was a continuing presence I was working
hard to ignore. I honestly think there's nothing to be offended
over.
Malicious intent is not required to make the act offensive;
you're still jumping into a project a year in the making and
demanding that I choose between investing an additional six
months (wild guess) of my time working on things I don't care
about (at best), or canceling the project (which has otherwise
received generally positive feedback so far).
I am not too upset mostly because I had a variety of reasons for
pursuing this, not all of which depend on getting it into Phobos.
This underlies a larger issue. There must be a protocol that
guarantees a proposal is brought to consideration to the D
leadership. Dicebot is leading such an initiative (which can be
seen as a revamping of DIPs) and we hope to get it finalized
soon.
Andrei
That is part of the problem, but this is also a fine example of a
broader pattern that I have noticed in D's review process:
Pull requests are routinely reviewed in an upside-down fashion:
1) Formatting
2) Typos
3) Names
4) Tests (and names again)
6) Docs (and names)
8) Design (and more about names)
9) Does this even belong in Phobos?
I don't think people are doing it on purpose - it's just easier
to start with the trivial nit-picks, because you don't need a
deep understanding of the code and the problem domain (or
decision-making authority) to complain about a missing ' ' or
something.
But, that doesn't change the fact that the process still feels
almost perfectly designed to waste contributors' time.
Unless the PR is a complete mess, (9) and (8) should be debated
*first*, before worrying about any of the other stuff. Why waste
people's time fixing trivialities, if it's all going to just be
deleted or rewritten anyway?
