Re: [ANN] guile-csv 0.0.1 released!

[Nala Ginrut]

On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 11:13 -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Nala Ginrut <address@hidden> writes:
> > Here is a CSV reader based on Andy's csv-reader.
> > And it's ready for guildhall.
> [...]
> > PS: I'll call ijp to add it into the repo.
> 
> 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 you concern about is the package evaluate policy, which has been
raised for a time:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2013-01/msg00047.html

IMO, it's improper to evaluate every packages very strictly. It's not
benefit for folks to contribute, neither for the guys who would say "I
just want to use the package simply, I don't care the quality since I'm
writing a quick prototype".
And what I've suggested is to classify the packages submitted: 
quality/freedom/maintainability/experimental or even toy

Maybe I'm too hurry to send 'package adding' request, I can build my own
repo rather than an official one. But seems it's good for raising
package evaluate policy topic again.

Anyway, thanks for reply ;-)

> What do other people think?
> 
>       Mark