I have started a new thread.
> On Nov 9, 2017, at 2:05 AM, Adrian Zubarev <adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com> > wrote: > > Hello Ted, would you mind opening a new thread and post an update about the > forum and maybe answer a few minor questions like: > - what is currently planned? > - in which timeframe we *might* see the forum finally happening (don’t have > to be a promise)? > - what happens to old mailing lists? (I’d say put a public archive somewhere, > maybe slightly better formatted than the mailing list is, but do not spam new > categories so that we can start with a fresh and clean forum. I also wouldn’t > bother with migrating old users to new accounts. If I’m interested in > contribution I can take a minute and create a new forum account. I mean we’re > not trying to sell here anything, so this shouldn’t be a high priority > right!?) > > Thank you. :) > > > Am 9. November 2017 um 07:12:10, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution > (swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb: > >> >> >>> On Nov 8, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Kelvin Ma <kelvin1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution >>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 8, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution >>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 8, 2017, at 4:30 AM, Wallacy via swift-evolution >>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not agree with Ted that only a few projects should be ranked, >>>>>> everyone, as it is in npm should be available. Only be graded according >>>>>> to recommendations. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I’m a bit confused. I’m not sure what comments of mine I’m referring to. >>>> >>>> Clearly I’m double confused. That meant to read “I’m not sure what >>>> comments of mine *you* are referring to”. >>>> >>>> I fully support having a broad spectrum of libraries that the community >>>> builds and uses. Any library that we decide to make part of “core Swift” >>>> — IMHO at a mature point in a library’s evolution — would need to have >>>> high value to the majority of the community and would need to feel solid >>>> enough that we can lock it in for both source and binary compatibility, >>>> high quality of implementation with sustained maintenance, etc. >>> >>> i mean I don’t think these approaches are incompatible. The “swift core” >>> could just make the process of independent libraries getting started >>> easier. Like right now there’s really no place to say “hey I just started a >>> library project for X, and anyone who wants to be involved should >>> contribute at Y github repo where it lives right now”. I’ve tried sending >>> that on this list before and it didn’t really work because mailing lists >>> aren’t really a good medium for that and no one wants the swift-evolution >>> list getting clogged with project-specific messages most people don’t care >>> about. >>> >> >> >> These are great points. >> >> FWIW, I’m getting optimistic about moving to a forum soon. Would you expect >> that a forum could provide a better vehicle than a mailing list to arrange >> communication and interest within the community around building libraries? >> Not just doing shout outs for projects, but also doing possible API design >> review, etc.? >> >> As an analogy, within Apple we have various mailing lists to review APIs, >> which is one mechanism used for different teams to co-review newly proposed >> APIs and consider how they compose together with other APIs. It’s not >> always perfect, but it does help facilitate a culture of API review so that >> various APIs can be considered together and part of the same (or compatible) >> design philosophies. >> >> One of the things that resonated to me from Dave DeLong’s proposal was a >> sense about having a set of libraries that are well-considered and their >> efforts coordinated. While the coordination pitched in Dave’s proposal was >> about a focused effort on a particular set of libraries/features, >> coordination can also take the form of having a community that cares about >> building good APIs and can constructively discuss them. This can be done >> while also completely factoring out whether or not those APIs are part of >> “core Swift”. Further, shared API review wouldn’t necessarily be about >> making actual decisions — which is the case of swift-evolution when >> evaluating language and standard library changes — but offering advice. >> Fundamentally the library author still stays in control of their library and >> APIs, but the community could help in shaping up the gestalt of what are >> considered well-crafted Swift APIs in general. >> >> Of course the big difference here with this idea compared to Apple’s >> internal API review process is that for Apple the APIs it vends are intended >> to be shipped together, and thus they must work together. In open source, >> however, efforts on various libraries are often (usually?) independent. >> Projects are usually created independently by different authors, and while >> it may be desirable for APIs from various libraries to feel natural to work >> with together, it’s not a requirement on their construction in general. >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> swift-evolution@swift.org >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
