Reviews are an important part of the Swift Server Work Group incubation process. All review feedback should be either on this forum thread or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review manager (via email or direct message in the Swift forums).
What goes into a review of a proposal?
The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and, eventually, become listed on the Swift Server Ecosystem index page.
When reviewing a proposal, here are some questions to consider:
What is your evaluation of the proposal and its APIs/implementation?
Is the problem being addressed relevant for the wider Swift on Server ecosystem?
Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of the Swift Server ecosystem?
If you have used other libraries in Swift or other languages, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
I've been using similar code (and then later this package once it materialized) in my libraries and work for quite some time
+1 for endorsing it in the SSWG.
What is your evaluation of the proposal and its APIs/implementation?
It's good for what it is, a stop-gap until we'd get a "real" fault handling story for Swift, though no idea when that will be -- thus the package is very valuable in making server-side crashing at least somewhat debuggable until/if that time comes.
Is the problem being addressed relevant for the wider Swift on Server ecosystem?
Yes, absolutely. Just quitting processes without any backtrace are a nightmare.
Quitting processes still are a pain, but at lease now there’s a chance to debug server apps which exited this way.
Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of the Swift Server ecosystem?
Yes, and it's being used out in the wild as well, proving it's valuable.
If you have used other libraries in Swift or other languages, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
We have implemented a number of similar or related things in some of my projects. Over all they end up being more or less what this package is, if it's just about logging faults. In short: It's fine.
How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
Looked at it back then when the package was kicked off by Ian way back then. It has not changed much since then AFAICS.
