www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Phobos.testing

reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
I've noticed that it's somewhat difficult to get code into Phobos.  This is
somewhat understandable--noone wants a standard library full of buggy code
that noone understands.  On the other hand, it doesn't seem like there's a
very well-organized process for getting stuff into Phobos if you're not a main
contributor.

Should something like a Phobos.testing lib be created?  Such a project would
be an area of dsource.  The bar for getting stuff checked into here would be
relatively low.  If you write a module and check it into phobos.testing, it
indicates that you believe that it would be generally useful enough to go into
Phobos and are posting it for review/comment/other people to use with the
caveat that it might not be well tested yet.  This dsource project would use
its own forums to comment on the code and debate about what does and doesn't
belong in Phobos.  Every release, Andrei would pick off the best well-tested,
well-reviewed community-created feature and add it to the "real" phobos.

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.
Oct 10 2009
next sibling parent div0 <div0 users.sourceforge.net> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

dsimcha wrote:

 I've noticed that it's somewhat difficult to get code into Phobos.  This is
 somewhat understandable--noone wants a standard library full of buggy code
 that noone understands.  On the other hand, it doesn't seem like there's a
 very well-organized process for getting stuff into Phobos if you're not a main
 contributor.
 
 Should something like a Phobos.testing lib be created?  Such a project would
 be an area of dsource.  The bar for getting stuff checked into here would be
 relatively low.  If you write a module and check it into phobos.testing, it
 indicates that you believe that it would be generally useful enough to go into
 Phobos and are posting it for review/comment/other people to use with the
 caveat that it might not be well tested yet.  This dsource project would use
 its own forums to comment on the code and debate about what does and doesn't
 belong in Phobos.  Every release, Andrei would pick off the best well-tested,
 well-reviewed community-created feature and add it to the "real" phobos.


Sounds like a good idea.

At the mo, my biggest annoyance with D is the lack of a decent set of
container classes in Phobos. Considering how D is supposed to be a
superior c++, not having equivalents of the stl containers is a gob
smackingly stupid omission.

I'd be happy to port all of stl to D if it would be used and tested,
though it would be better if it was redesigned with Andrei's ranges.


 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.


Yeah, bugzilla sucks ass.

I hate not being able to browse it; you have to search and search only
works if you happen to think in the same words as the person that files
a bug.

- --
My enormous talent is exceeded only by my outrageous laziness.
http://www.ssTk.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFK0RlZT9LetA9XoXwRAstJAKCbJ/RjR/fApG3C+nB5Puc91JnHEwCg0jie
jKvE3ScAAD3FPPKig33NK4A=
=Shgw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Oct 10 2009
prev sibling parent reply Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2009-10-10 19:01:35 -0400, dsimcha <dsimcha 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.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
Oct 10 2009
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Michel Fortin wrote:

 On 2009-10-10 19:01:35 -0400, dsimcha <dsimcha 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
Oct 10 2009
next sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org)'s article

 Michel Fortin wrote:

 On 2009-10-10 19:01:35 -0400, dsimcha <dsimcha 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.
Oct 10 2009
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
dsimcha wrote:

 == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org)'s article

 Michel Fortin wrote:

 On 2009-10-10 19:01:35 -0400, dsimcha <dsimcha 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.


Yah, I think Boost has a "sandbox" that allows that.

So, ready to submit your Rationals library? :o)

Andrei
Oct 10 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 07:06:30 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:


 Michel Fortin wrote:

 On 2009-10-10 19:01:35 -0400, dsimcha <dsimcha 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


It's great for Boost, because Boost has an extremely large user base.  
Besides, Boost is large enough already and there are a lot of people who  
is willing to contribute, so a very strict policy is needed.

Phobos is not like Boost. I believe a more open policy is required to make  
people contribute to it.

For example, Tango is open to everyone, that's why it evolves so fast.  
Although small, contributions are made in a daily basis by a lot of  
people. They are not contributing entire libraries, of course, some small  
bug-fixes, performance improvements, typos, name change (for consistency),  
etc. Step-by-step it is getting better and better.

On the contrary, Phobos has stalled.

I submitted a few Phobos bugs to bugzilla. They are still not addressed.  
Having 2-3 people with write access to Phobos is clearly not enough -  
there is not enough human power. That's bugzilla entries are left without  
answers, bugs are not fixed.

I don't submit them anymore. It just doesn't work. I see a lot of quirks  
in Phobos, huge performance problems (it allocates every time, often  
without any reason) and just typos.
Given a direct svn access, I could easily fix some of them, but I'm too  
lazy to waste my time on creating one line long patches, making bugzilla  
reports, etc. And what then? Waiting like 3 years until they are  
addressed? No, thanks.
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Denis Koroskin wrote:

 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 07:06:30 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:
 

 Michel Fortin wrote:

 On 2009-10-10 19:01:35 -0400, dsimcha <dsimcha 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


 
 It's great for Boost, because Boost has an extremely large user base. 
 Besides, Boost is large enough already and there are a lot of people who 
 is willing to contribute, so a very strict policy is needed.
 
 Phobos is not like Boost. I believe a more open policy is required to 
 make people contribute to it.


I need to say that having witnessed how Boost has evolved, what you say 
is simply not the case. Dave Abrahams has imposed from the very 
beginning very high standards. (I'm not saying that that's the only 
model that could work.)


 For example, Tango is open to everyone, that's why it evolves so fast. 
 Although small, contributions are made in a daily basis by a lot of 
 people. They are not contributing entire libraries, of course, some 
 small bug-fixes, performance improvements, typos, name change (for 
 consistency), etc. Step-by-step it is getting better and better.
 
 On the contrary, Phobos has stalled.
 
 I submitted a few Phobos bugs to bugzilla. They are still not addressed. 
 Having 2-3 people with write access to Phobos is clearly not enough - 
 there is not enough human power. That's bugzilla entries are left 
 without answers, bugs are not fixed.
 
 I don't submit them anymore. It just doesn't work. I see a lot of quirks 
 in Phobos, huge performance problems (it allocates every time, often 
 without any reason) and just typos.
 Given a direct svn access, I could easily fix some of them, but I'm too 
 lazy to waste my time on creating one line long patches, making bugzilla 
 reports, etc. And what then? Waiting like 3 years until they are 
 addressed? No, thanks.


Sorry. I occasionally scan the bug reports and work on the 
Phobos-related ones, but I missed yours. I just assigned to myself four 
bugs you submitted.

I think it should be fine to give you write and other regulars write 
access to Phobos. I'll ask Walter and Don.


Andrei
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Sorry. I occasionally scan the bug reports and work on the
 Phobos-related ones, but I missed yours. I just assigned to myself four
 bugs you submitted.
 
 I think it should be fine to give you write and other regulars write
 access to Phobos. I'll ask Walter and Don.
 
 
 Andrei


For what it's worth, there seem to be about 206 open issues filed against
phobos.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&component=Phobos&product=D&query_format=advanced&order=version%2Cvotes%20DESC%2Cbug_id&query_based_on=

More than I'd guessed before running the query.

Later,
Brad
Oct 11 2009
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:

 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
  > Sorry. I occasionally scan the bug reports and work on the

 Phobos-related ones, but I missed yours. I just assigned to myself four
 bugs you submitted.

 I think it should be fine to give you write and other regulars write
 access to Phobos. I'll ask Walter and Don.


 Andrei


 
 For what it's worth, there seem to be about 206 open issues filed against
phobos.
 
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&component=Phobos&product=D&query_format=advanced&order=version%2Cvotes%20DESC%2Cbug_id&query_based_on=
 
 More than I'd guessed before running the query.
 
 Later,
 Brad


Cool. One of these days I'll start using Bugzilla's search feature.

I took over the bugs I think I can fix.


Andrei
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Sorry. I occasionally scan the bug reports and work on the 
 Phobos-related ones, but I missed yours. I just assigned to myself four 
 bugs you submitted.


Phobos should probably use trac tickets. It would make it easier to 
range query phobos bugs.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2009-10-11 03:56:55 -0400, "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> said:


 I submitted a few Phobos bugs to bugzilla. They are still not 
 addressed.  Having 2-3 people with write access to Phobos is clearly 
 not enough -  there is not enough human power. That's bugzilla entries 
 are left without  answers, bugs are not fixed.
 
 I don't submit them anymore. It just doesn't work. I see a lot of 
 quirks  in Phobos, huge performance problems (it allocates every time, 
 often  without any reason) and just typos.
 Given a direct svn access, I could easily fix some of them, but I'm too 
  lazy to waste my time on creating one line long patches, making 
 bugzilla  reports, etc. And what then? Waiting like 3 years until they 
 are  addressed? No, thanks.


Somehow I wonder if a distributed versioning system wouldn't be better 
to encourage public participation and make it easy for maintainers to 
accept patches. It'd be easy for me and others to maintain their own 
fork of Phobos with their own fixes while we test them, and for Phobos 
maintainers to review, select and merge back in the mainline any 
addition (whole branches or single commits) made in those forks. It'd 
be a much more automated process than applying patches from bugzilla, 
and that way you don't have to give access to the mainline to a lot of 
people. It'd require people to know the tool though.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
Oct 11 2009
parent Daniel de Kok <me nowhere.nospam> writes:
On 2009-10-11 14:13:22 +0200, Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> said:


 On 2009-10-11 03:56:55 -0400, "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> said:
 

 I submitted a few Phobos bugs to bugzilla. They are still not 
 addressed.  Having 2-3 people with write access to Phobos is clearly 
 not enough -  there is not enough human power. That's bugzilla entries 
 are left without  answers, bugs are not fixed.
 
 I don't submit them anymore. It just doesn't work. I see a lot of 
 quirks  in Phobos, huge performance problems (it allocates every time, 
 often  without any reason) and just typos.
 Given a direct svn access, I could easily fix some of them, but I'm too 
  lazy to waste my time on creating one line long patches, making 
 bugzilla  reports, etc. And what then? Waiting like 3 years until they 
 are  addressed? No, thanks.


 
 Somehow I wonder if a distributed versioning system wouldn't be better 
 to encourage public participation and make it easy for maintainers to 
 accept patches.


It would, systems like git make it far easier to fork/diff/merge than 
Subversion. Subversion is a bit of a pain, where you end up either 
having no version management except for a diff against the upstream 
repository or a local subversion tree that does not have a relation 
with the Phobos tree.

Of course, you could partically go distributed by using git-svn to 
check out the Phobos Subversion repository.

-- Daniel
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Denis Koroskin wrote:

 I submitted a few Phobos bugs to bugzilla. They are still not addressed. 
 Having 2-3 people with write access to Phobos is clearly not enough - 
 there is not enough human power. That's bugzilla entries are left 
 without answers, bugs are not fixed.
 
 I don't submit them anymore. It just doesn't work. I see a lot of quirks 
 in Phobos, huge performance problems (it allocates every time, often 
 without any reason) and just typos.
 Given a direct svn access, I could easily fix some of them, but I'm too 
 lazy to waste my time on creating one line long patches, making bugzilla 
 reports, etc. And what then? Waiting like 3 years until they are 
 addressed? No, thanks.


Denis, I have bad news for you: as a proof that you should be careful 
what you ask for, I got Walter's and Don's approval to add you to the 
Phobos developers roster. Please email me your dsource username.

All, please join me in welcoming Denis to Cosa Nostra.

People who want to gain write access to Phobos, please contact one of 
the admins (Brad, Walter, Don, Sean, or myself). The decision will be 
taken by vote on a per-case basis.


Thanks,

Andrei
Oct 11 2009
parent Graham St Jack <Graham.StJack internode.on.net> writes:
This discussion is great news. I will happily contribute to Phobos if the 
barriers are lowered enough. It would be worthwhile posting something on 
the announce newsgroup when you have some sort of improved contribution 
procedure worked out.

Also, I would be happier with mercurial or git than with subversion.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent reply Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
...

 
 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


Are the preliminary submission and formal review open for anyone to 
participate in or watch? I would suggest taking advantage of traffic the 
newsgroups get to draw attention to them, be it only an announcement.
Oct 11 2009
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Lutger wrote:

 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 ...

 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


 
 Are the preliminary submission and formal review open for anyone to 
 participate in or watch? I would suggest taking advantage of traffic the 
 newsgroups get to draw attention to them, be it only an announcement. 


At least in Boost, that's the case. Submissions go to the newsgroup and 
everybody can comment and/or vote.

Andrei
Oct 11 2009