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 <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Mark H Weaver <mhw@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’.
>
>
>