Ask Bjoern Hansen writes:
> the perl-qa people have some code they need to manage in a
> repository of some kind. For now I have directed them to
> SourceForge, but I have a 100 users license for perforce I got for
> perl, so if we can get a quick consensus that we might want to make
> a perl6 code infrastructure around perforce then I'll go ahead and
> set it up.
>
> thoughts?
Simon Cozens is working on a perforce replacement, with some features
that the pumpkings of perl5 have asked for. If his gets working, I'd
love to see it integrated into SourceForge.
We'll need an automated distributed build system, similar to the
Mozilla and SourceForge systems.
The QA folks are going to come up with (are coming up with) a system
to integrate testing into documentation, so that tests can be
associated with the features described in the documentation. I'm also
picturing the documentation acting in no small way as a functional
specification for the language (we'll be aided by the fact that most
of the text will be cribbable from perl5's documetnation). The
extraction and application of the tests will need to be part of the
build process.
I picture the design process ending with a breakdown into modules, and
then a codification of the interfaces between the modules. Then we
stub the modules, get something that passes the compiler. Now we turn
to implementation, and begin filling in the gaps. The
build-test-and-report cycles of Mozilla are good in this respect:
immediate and useful feedback about the state of the source tree.
I keep repeating Mozilla. Perhaps someone should look at Tinderbox
and see if it's adaptable to our needs?
Nat
