D1 and Phobos Fixes
spacenjasset at yahoo.co.uk
Thu May 14 16:07:29 PDT 2009
Jason House wrote:
> Spacen Jasset Wrote:
>> Since D1 is stable I wonder why bugs in Phobos1 and/or D can't be ironed
>> out quicker by allowing certain members of the D community to commit
>> changes to phobos directly.
>> This goes for the compiler too, but presumably a lot of the the code is
>> shared and it isn't so easy.
>> I presume that all the bug fixes for phobos are incorporated by Walter,
>> and wonder if this need by the case. Would it not be useful to have a
>> "team" of some sort that can operate on phobos1 directly, and take
>> submissions from the wider community.
>> These fixes of course would be bug fixes only, I dand perhaps in some cases
>> fixes where no behaviour has been defined, but existing behaviour is
>> (clearly) wrong or non intentional.
> Direct annonymous access can lead to quality control issues. I doubt that'll happen. It's much more reasonable to give write access on a case by case basis. If you want to make a case for yourself, start by adding quality patches into bugzilla. If they don't get no reaction, you can complain publicly on this newsgroup.
> More than just Walter has write access to Phobos. Andrei, Sean, and Don also have access. I'm pretty sure Don and Sean got access after frequent high quality contributions.
I did mean some "trusted" people rather than everyone, and I also mean
perhaps someone(s) that can funnel patches in from the community, as a
gatekeeper. I don't know if Andrei, Sean, or Don do that sort of thing
on a regular basis.
I don't mean to whine, but people here have, and continue complain about
the rate of fixes from time to time. So perhaps for D1/phobos1 a case
can be made for more of a community momentum as it were.
It's just an idea. I have been following D's development for a few years
now. Following is the word too, I haven't done much with it, so my
contributions are minimal. I might aim to change that though. Can't sit
around when there are projects to be worked on.
Perhaps someone with commit rights could look at 2429 (has patch) or
2413 They aren't that important on the one hand, but on the other hand
they are bugs. Perhaps since the focus will be switching to D2 it isn't
so important for fix D1 bugs now anyway.
Since this is the modern age of distributed revision control we could
use such a system. I have played around with launchpad and bzr git and
see that the model works quite well. (I am not necessarily suggesting
bzr and launchpad here) While bugzilla patch files and svn work quite
well. It is possible, and probably easier to stage branches in various
states that people can pull from and then submit patches to, which
ultimately can then potentially be put in the main phobos branch, and in
the mean time people can pull down development branches to get the
latest fixes that aren't in the official release yet.
I am going off on all sorts of tangents here, but a colleague of mine
has just ventured into D (After Andrei banded the D word about at the
ACCU conference), and I think it could help a lot if people were able to
contribute more easily to D/phobos or any other related projects.
I am not sure I am getting across what I think I mean with all this
waffle, so perhaps less of that and more doing is in order.
More information about the Digitalmars-d