Re: The Policy(tm)

[Peter Simons]

Guido Draheim writes:

 > IOW, fortran is a bit special in this respect ;-)

Perfectly alright with me, it's just that we don't _have_ any macro
that would go into a "Fortran" category. Why don't we create it when
we need it?


 >> [short-cutting the submission process]

 > Personally, I can stand the heat. 

I don't worry about "heat" at all. I just don't want to screw up. 

The moment the macro is submitted, it is available on the web page.
There's a good chance that the submission process is over before the
next release is published. So why the hurry? Why mess up a perfectly
sound and fair submission process just so that the macro shows up in
one of the official categories a couple of days earlier?

The reason we started this whole thing was to ensure the quality of
the macros presented in the archive. The only way we can ensure the
quality of the macros presented in the archive is by having them
reviewed by as many people as possible. 

Short-cutting defies the whole purpose.


 >> I thought we had (all) agreed on that before and considered it to
 >> be a good idea? Is there a case in which a prefix but AX_ would be
 >> useful?

 > Not quite, but some `should` will make it anyway that anyone
 > renames its macros to the AX namespaces when there is a minimal
 > chance to do so.

I honestly don't understand. I'm sorry ... but we talked about this.
We _all_ agreed that having a common prefix for the archive's contents
was nothing but beneficial. So why should we drop that requirement
now? I just cannot see a reason. Why would someone possibly insist on
using a different prefix for a submission?

Peter