This discussion is great news. I will happily contribute to Phobos if the
barriers are lowered enough. It would be worthwhile posting something on
the announce newsgroup when you have some sort of improved contribution
procedure worked out.
Also, I would be happier with mercurial or git than wi
Denis Koroskin wrote:
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 anymo
Brad Roberts wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 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 as
On 2009-10-11 14:13:22 +0200, Michel Fortin said:
On 2009-10-11 03:56:55 -0400, "Denis Koroskin" <2kor...@gmail.com> said:
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 huma
Lutger wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
...
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,
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
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.
Phobos should probably use trac tickets. It would make it easier to
range query phobos bugs.
On 2009-10-11 03:56:55 -0400, "Denis Koroskin" <2kor...@gmail.com> said:
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 a
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
...
>
> 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 subm
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 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
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 07:06:30 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-10-10 19:01:35 -0400, dsimcha 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 a
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 07:06:30 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-10-10 19:01:35 -0400, dsimcha 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.
ty 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
ion, 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 b
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-10-10 19:01:35 -0400, dsimcha 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,
c
27;t seem like there's a
> very well-organized process for getting stuff into Phobos if you're not a main
> contributor.
>
> Should something like a Phobos.testing lib be created? Such a project would
> be an area of dsource. The bar for getting stuff checked into here woul
On 2009-10-10 19:01:35 -0400, dsimcha 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
Phobos if you're not a main
contributor.
Should something like a Phobos.testing lib be created? Such a project would
be an area of dsource. The bar for getting stuff checked into here would be
relatively low. If you write a module and check it into phobos.testing, it
indicates that you
17 matches
Mail list logo
