Phobos.testing

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org)'s article
> Michel Fortin wrote:
> > On 2009-10-10 19:01:35 -0400, dsimcha <dsimcha at yahoo.com> 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.