[swift-evolution] Swift phases and mis-timed proposals
clattner at nondot.org
Tue Jun 13 01:18:37 CDT 2017
> On Jun 12, 2017, at 10:07 PM, Paul Cantrell via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> Perhaps the solution is not necessarily throttling proposals per se, but having some mechanism for routing a proposal to something other than either a review cycle or the freezer: “this needs manifesto-ing,” “this needs prototyping to measure impact on existing code,” “this needs to simmer and find its context before we work it into a proposal,” etc. (That’s related to Daryle’s original message.)
I feel like I’m missing some part of the motivation for this thread. Let me try to explain why:
Lets say you’re interested in proposing a new feature or idea today, and are told that it is out of scope. One of two things happen. When the next release comes around, either:
1) if you’re still engaged with swift-evolution, you can bring it back up.
2) if you’re not still engaged, it will get dropped unless someone else is interested in championing it.
What good does a “queue” of proposals in the freezer do? In practice, getting a proposal to happen frequently requires editing and iteration, not to mention active discussion about motivation. We have no shortage of important proposals to get through in each release, why should we make it easier for proposals with no active proponent? Wouldn’t that just encourage people to drop off “drive-by” proposals for ideas?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution