Phobos.testing

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

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