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’.