On 2017-01-03 06:24, Robert Ramey wrote:
On 1/2/17 7:41 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote: ...
It would lead to better (and less acrimonious) reviews because we are not expecting perfection from day one.
FWIW - I don't think the reviews are all that acrimonious.
I have to site with Paul here as from what I've seen people do tend to expect everything on a plate from the set-go.
Too few people are reviewing 'real-life' usage. We need more users and that won't happen until we have a two-stage acceptance process.
Well we sort of have a two-stage process now.
Stage I = inclubator Stage II reviewed
The problem with the incubator IMO is that it does not provide any guarantee whatsoever that the library will be accepted/around/maintained in the future. The deployment requirements might well be different for other people but my situation is that we simply cannot include an external library/dependency without such a guarantee. The burden/impact of retiring/replacing a no-longer-supported library is likely to be unacceptably high.