This has been said before, but I think the most important thing is for people who are new to Guile to be able to see a list of "mature, well-maintained" libraries (whatever that means), and tell the difference between those and poorly-maintained or bitrotted libraries.
It would also be nice to have a place to store unmaintained code, because people can still use it, but they should be clearly separate. Noah On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis: > > > I haven't yet looked carefully at this code or its API, so this is no > > judgement on you, but in general, I don't think we should follow the > > model of "Hey, here's the first release of a library I just hacked up. > > Please add it to Guildhall now." That's how we ended up with an ice-9 > > directory that's full of bitrotted implementations of half-baked APIs. > > > > I'd much rather follow the example of Shiro Kawai, who is very cautious > > to experiment with new APIs at length before adding them to Gauche, and > > the result is IMO a beautiful and consistent set of APIs. > > > > Maybe we can find a good compromise position between these two extremes. > > > > What do other people think? > > Well, there can be several repositories. Once there’s one at gnu.org, > it could have a lightweight review process, and host reasonably mature > code (the barrier to entry should be lower than that of Guile proper > IMO, but not too demanding.) > > People are free to setup additional repositories with their own > policies. > > Ludo’. > > >
