Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 07:06:30 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
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
It's great for Boost, because Boost has an extremely large user base.
Besides, Boost is large enough already and there are a lot of people who
is willing to contribute, so a very strict policy is needed.
Phobos is not like Boost. I believe a more open policy is required to
make people contribute to it.
I need to say that having witnessed how Boost has evolved, what you say
is simply not the case. Dave Abrahams has imposed from the very
beginning very high standards. (I'm not saying that that's the only
model that could work.)
For example, Tango is open to everyone, that's why it evolves so fast.
Although small, contributions are made in a daily basis by a lot of
people. They are not contributing entire libraries, of course, some
small bug-fixes, performance improvements, typos, name change (for
consistency), etc. Step-by-step it is getting better and better.
On the contrary, Phobos has stalled.
I submitted a few Phobos bugs to bugzilla. They are still not addressed.
Having 2-3 people with write access to Phobos is clearly not enough -
there is not enough human power. That's bugzilla entries are left
without answers, bugs are not fixed.
I don't submit them anymore. It just doesn't work. I see a lot of quirks
in Phobos, huge performance problems (it allocates every time, often
without any reason) and just typos.
Given a direct svn access, I could easily fix some of them, but I'm too
lazy to waste my time on creating one line long patches, making bugzilla
reports, etc. And what then? Waiting like 3 years until they are
addressed? No, thanks.
Sorry. I occasionally scan the bug reports and work on the
Phobos-related ones, but I missed yours. I just assigned to myself four
bugs you submitted.
I think it should be fine to give you write and other regulars write
access to Phobos. I'll ask Walter and Don.
Andrei
