On Monday, 17 October 2016 at 06:58:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 10/17/2016 02:39 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2016-10-17 04:08, Dicebot wrote:
Listen, I understand you are not interested in spending loads
of time on
boring polishing of formalities. We all do this in our spare
time so
that is to be expected.
But what you say here only shows that process is working as
intended
Well, the designed of the DIP process if flawed.
What steps do you think we could take to improve it? Since
Dicebot took the reins things are showing real promise. I'm
sure he'd be interested in taking suggestions.
Looking at other languages that have similar process. Python's
PIPs are probably the closest to DIP. Two observations:
1. Python as clean tooling around PIPs. We should render PIPs
from the dlang/DIP nicely at dip.dlang.org (My understanding that
repository is now favored over wiki entries).
2. Python DIPs are Guido's main focus of work. Maybe we can write
a bot mailing current in-process DIPs on a weekly basis to the
mailinglist as digest to remind Walter, Andrei and others to
reviewed. The list should ordered by last comment/review on it. I
am not 100% aware of all the edge cases of the process and have a
terrible track record of implementing things I say i will
implement, but I can give such a mailing bot a try, by scaping
dlang/DIP.
3. It would be great to be clear if the people who can accept a
DIP reviewed it and what the current suggested improvements are
so we can make constant head-way.
