dsimcha wrote:
== 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.
Yah, I think Boost has a "sandbox" that allows that.
So, ready to submit your Rationals library? :o)
Andrei
