how to build up the library..

[Regan Heath]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:44:42 +0100, Regan Heath <regan at netmail.co.nz>  
wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:44:31 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu  
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>
>> On 10/5/11 10:27 AM, Regan Heath wrote:
>>> I understand the issue, and the point you're making below, and I agree
>>> completely. At the same time, this particular change being as simple as
>>> it is, and as obviously beneficial as I hope I have managed to show,
>>> would have taken less time to simply change than it has taken to argue
>>> about.
>>
>> There is the issue that every small change creates a precedent for  
>> similar or smaller changes. I spent this much time on this particular  
>> issue hoping that it would improve an entire trend going forward.
>
> I think it may have backfired somewhat.  Now people are going to think  
> no change is possible and Andrei is an 'Ogre' when it comes to his own  
> modules.  In situations like this some sort of precedent or impression  
> will always be created.  The best you can do is take control of it, and  
> clearly define it.
>
> In this case clearly define the conditions under which the change is  
> allowed

.. or not allowed. :p

It's obvious from my last post that I think a change should be allowed.  I  
think you'd agree, were it not for the urgent need of other library  
components.

I've been lurking and contributing to this news group on and off for years  
(since 2005/2006, maybe earlier).  But, in all that time I have  
contributed nothing to Phobos.  I have contributed a set of digest/hashing  
routines to Tango, because at the time Phobos wasn't taking submissions.   
I have been meaning to clean my originals of these up, get them properly  
documented, etc and submit them for review for Phobos, but I just haven't  
had the time, and/or inclination to do so (my free time is precious and  
I've just not been feeling the urge/itch to code.. blame minecraft :p)

However, I am more than happy to hand them off in their current state to  
anyone who does have both time and inclination .. and I wonder how many  
other blocks of code are out there, just like mine, just waiting for the  
right person to take charge of them.  Would this be useful do you think?   
Or would the time it takes someone to pick up new code, learn it, fine  
tune it and document it.. etc be more than if they just started again from  
scratch.  It seems to me that sometimes, all that is needed to get a new  
module off the ground is a working prototype for the guts of it, which is  
what people like me who have some experience/knowledge but little  
time/energy could do, before handing it to someone who has a better idea  
of the D/Phobos 'way' and can organise the guts into a well formed module  
which complies with D style and Phobos guidelines etc.

Part of what puts people off (I suspect) is the 'relative' complexity of  
submitting code (obtaining/learning GIT etc), the standard the code needs  
to be at (well organised, documented etc), and the implied  
promise/commitment that submitting code brings with it (that you'll hang  
around and maintain it).  But, what if we were to create a system where  
people could submit code, no strings attached, in any state (they would  
define the state they believe it to be in) for the more dedicated  
contributors to pick up, clean up, and include as and when they could?  It  
could be as simple as a web page, where code is pasted, files attached,  
and a license waiver agreed to.

I know I have several pieces of code floating about the place which do  
useful things and would be motivated to create more if it would help the  
effort, and I could get a mention in the comments at the top of the  
finished module :p

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/