[phobos] Community shout-out?

[Jacob Carlborg]

Some of these don't exist yet, if I'm not mistaken?

On 14 nov 2010, at 09:05, SHOO wrote:

> I think that it is important that we prioritize our to-do list.
> 
> Therefore I think that firstly we should make a list. Next, it is necessary for us to clarify the problem that each item has.
> 
> I show following list the thing which I hit on:
> - std.stream, I/O (replace, enhance)
> - std.xml (replace?)
> - std.json (replace?)
> - std.datetime (replace, enhance)
> - scope/RAII (replace, enhance)
> - std.scoket / asio (replace)
> - std.event (enhance)
> - std.serialize (enhance)
> - documents (enhance)
> - std.process (enhance)
> - std.path, std.file (enhance)
> - pure (apply)
> - nothrow (apply)
> - @safe/@trusted/@system (apply)
> - shared (enhance, bug fix)
> - GC (enhance)
> - std.container (enhance)
> - opDollars (enhance, apply)
> - and some voted bugs (bug fix)
> (I only enumerate of the list at this stage, and omit the detailed explanation.)
> 
> Are there items else?
> 
> --
> SHOO
> 
> (2010/11/14 14:52), Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> We have several modules in Phobos which are supposedly going to be deprecated in
>> favor of better implementations (std.stream, std.xml, std.json, etc). As I
>> understand it, this is primarily because the code isn't being maintained, is
>> poorly designed for D2 (possibly because it isn't range-centric or just hasn't
>> been updated with D2-only features), and/or lacks a maintainer/champion. In
>> addition to that, there's various types of functionality which should probably
>> be in Phobos but haven't been done yet.
>> 
>> The Phobos developers only have so much time on their hands, and some portion of
>> this kind of work is going to need to be done by people who are not currently on
>> the Phobos team. That, and we seem to be adopting the idea that the ideal
>> situation is for each module to have a "champion" of sorts who is behind the
>> module, working to fix bugs on it and make it better.
>> 
>> So, I was wondering if what we should do is figure out what some of the modules
>> are that we want in Phobos - and in particular the ones currently in Phobos
>> which need to be overhauled - and then post on the main D list looking for
>> people willing to take them on. We don't want to a flood of code that needs to be
>> reviewed for inclusion in Phobos, but if we want to get a lot of this stuff done,
>> we need more people working on it - particularly people who are really looking
>> to focus on it and champion it.
>> 
>> So, I'm suggesting that we identify the top priority module which aren't likely
>> to be done by Phobos developers any time soon and see if we can get others in
>> the D community to do them. In particular, it's a problem that we have several
>> modules which we intend to replace. The longer that we wait, the more code that
>> will be written using the old modules, and the more code which will break when
>> they get replaced.
>> 
>> - Jonathan M Davis
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg