On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 09:28:42 UTC, HaraldZealot wrote:
Approximately a half year ago I have similar idea and
suggestion.
Thanks for your input. Yes, there are similarities, but there are
also some differences. See some of my comments below:
This is my idea:
* make new feature in dub, that it can place some libraries in
common namespace.
For example CyberShadow's ae will be placed in something like
advancex.image, or logger (lucky it is in std.experimental
already, but as alternative history) is placed in stdx.logger.
But they are not part of phobos in that time but usual dub
package on dub registry.
* create namespaces "advance" (or any other) for useful but not
so common components (e.g. proposal windowing, image processing
an so on), "bind" for Deimos. Phobos is "std" already :). And
also create their experimental counterpart like "advancex",
"bindx" and "stdx". (It can be other name but I prefer one
worded "stdx" than two worded "std.experimental" in other level
of hierarchy").
This differ from the "Drafting Library" proposal in the following
points:
- modules/packages are owned/driven by one developer
- dub packages are not inclined to work out of the box with dmd
release package
* make new feature in dub and dub register that counts
download, likes and bugs. When some package receives essential
feedback it can be started pull request process.
By the "pull request process" you mean inclusion in Phobos? Then,
in result, wouldn't it just mean: make the most popular dub
package in some category a standard?
For now I drive two interesting project, but I also try to find
forces for this one.
The important thing about the proposal is to provide a process so
one can be a part in creating the standard. You could contribute
to drafts for the modules related to areas of your expertise.
Piotrek
