== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu ([email protected])'s article > Michel Fortin wrote: > > On 2009-10-10 19:01:35 -0400, dsimcha <[email protected]> said: > > > >> Overall, the point is that there should be a well-defined process for > >> getting > >> code into Phobos and a well-defined place to post this code and > >> comment on it. > >> Bugzilla probably doesn't cut it because it's not easy to download, > >> compile > >> and test lots of different snippets of code from here. > > > > There should indeed be a process for proposing new modules or major > > features. I don't care much what it is, but it should make code > > available for review from all the interested parties, and allow public > > discussion about this code. Whether this discussion should happen on > > this newsgroup or elsewhere, I'm not sure however. > > > > And it'd be nice if it could auto-generate documentation from the > > proposed modules: glancing at the documentation often gives you a > > different perspective on the API, and it'd encourage people to write > > good documentation. > I'm all for accepting additions to Phobos, and for putting in place a > process to do so. I suggest we follow a procedure used to great effect > by Boost. They have a formal process in place that consists of a > preliminary submission, a refinement period, a submission, a review, and > a vote. > http://www.boost.org/development/submissions.html > I compel you all to seriously consider it, and am willing to provide > website space and access. > Andrei
This sounds pretty good, except that I think it would be even better if the whole phobos.testing lib were easy for testers to download and install and play around with in non-production code. Actually using a library, even in toy/hobby projects, instead of just looking at it on paper makes it a lot easier to give informed opinions on it.
