www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Tools should use the review process

reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
Since we stared with a review process for adding new modules to Phobos 
around eight new tools have been added without any review process 
similar to the one used for Phobos modules. They were only reviewed in 
pull requests.

Some of these are minor tools/scripts but there are larger tools as 
well, like RDMD (added before the release process) and DustMire (added 
after the release process).

I think that new tools should use the same review process just as new 
modules for Phobos do. What do you think?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Dec 28 2013
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/28/13 6:16 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 Since we stared with a review process for adding new modules to Phobos
 around eight new tools have been added without any review process
 similar to the one used for Phobos modules. They were only reviewed in
 pull requests.

 Some of these are minor tools/scripts but there are larger tools as
 well, like RDMD (added before the release process) and DustMire (added
 after the release process).

 I think that new tools should use the same review process just as new
 modules for Phobos do. What do you think?


That would, of course, be great.

I can't stop mentioning again that we are having a severe deflation of 
reviewers. We are currently treating our contributors the worst way 
possible - with indifference.

The oldest pull request is two years old: 
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/398. There is 
activity on the new pull requests, but many old pull requests are just 
left unreviewed. This is especially painful for new or casual 
contributors, who make an attempt and are discouraged by the lack of 
care. Also, due to there being fewer attentive reviewers than 
contributors, some requests are pulled without sufficient review.

That makes me worried about adding another repo to the workload of 
reviewers - it means spreading an already insufficient resource even 
thinner. Of course the right solution to this is more review participation.


Andrei
Dec 28 2013
next sibling parent Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> writes:
On 12/28/2013 06:28 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 I can't stop mentioning again that we are having a severe deflation of
 reviewers. We are currently treating our contributors the worst way
 possible - with indifference.


Yep
Dec 28 2013
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-12-28 18:28, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 That would, of course, be great.

 I can't stop mentioning again that we are having a severe deflation of
 reviewers. We are currently treating our contributors the worst way
 possible - with indifference.


I know and that sucks. But is that a reason to not have the same 
standard as for new Phobos modules?


 The oldest pull request is two years old:
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/398. There is
 activity on the new pull requests, but many old pull requests are just
 left unreviewed. This is especially painful for new or casual
 contributors, who make an attempt and are discouraged by the lack of
 care. Also, due to there being fewer attentive reviewers than
 contributors, some requests are pulled without sufficient review.


I agree. There are even older pull requests that are closed by the 
contributor due to lack of interest, either from the reviewers or/and 
contributors side https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3


 That makes me worried about adding another repo to the workload of
 reviewers - it means spreading an already insufficient resource even
 thinner. Of course the right solution to this is more review participation.


I know and agree, but I don't want the quality to be any less then what 
it is in the Phobos modules.

One think I noticed in the tools repository is that some tools are more 
focused towards the core team, like changed.d and some tools are for all 
developers like RDMD. The most important tools are of course those aimed 
to be used by all developers. Perhaps we can find a middle ground here. 
I'm thinking that Dub is a possible candidate for inclusion in the tools 
repository. That would be a perfect example for a tool aimed at to all 
developers and should go through a review process.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Dec 28 2013
next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:03:04PM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2013-12-28 18:28, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


[...]

 One think I noticed in the tools repository is that some tools are
 more focused towards the core team, like changed.d and some tools
 are for all developers like RDMD. The most important tools are of
 course those aimed to be used by all developers. Perhaps we can find
 a middle ground here. I'm thinking that Dub is a possible candidate
 for inclusion in the tools repository. That would be a perfect
 example for a tool aimed at to all developers and should go through
 a review process.


[...]

IMNSHO, I think the tools repo needs a reorg. Currently we have trivial
things like 'changed' or 'findtags' or 'latest-tag', which are
completely useless to everyone except the core devs (you probably don't
even know what they're supposed to do unless you read the source code),
and then we have 'dustmite' and 'rdmd' that generally applicable to
whoever uses D.

I think this needs to be split into two repos, one for
production-quality tools that are meant for the end-user, and one for
miscellaneous quick-hack scripts meant for internal use by the core
devs. The current situation of dumping random stuff into tools that most
people may or may not care for, 'cos we don't know where else to put
them, only makes a laughing stock of D.


T

-- 
Маленькие детки - маленькие бедки.
Dec 28 2013
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-12-28 21:28, H. S. Teoh wrote:


 IMNSHO, I think the tools repo needs a reorg. Currently we have trivial
 things like 'changed' or 'findtags' or 'latest-tag', which are
 completely useless to everyone except the core devs (you probably don't
 even know what they're supposed to do unless you read the source code),
 and then we have 'dustmite' and 'rdmd' that generally applicable to
 whoever uses D.

 I think this needs to be split into two repos, one for
 production-quality tools that are meant for the end-user, and one for
 miscellaneous quick-hack scripts meant for internal use by the core
 devs. The current situation of dumping random stuff into tools that most
 people may or may not care for, 'cos we don't know where else to put
 them, only makes a laughing stock of D.


Well said. It's most important to have a review for the end user tools.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Dec 29 2013
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/28/13 12:03 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 One think I noticed in the tools repository is that some tools are more
 focused towards the core team, like changed.d and some tools are for all
 developers like RDMD. The most important tools are of course those aimed
 to be used by all developers. Perhaps we can find a middle ground here.
 I'm thinking that Dub is a possible candidate for inclusion in the tools
 repository. That would be a perfect example for a tool aimed at to all
 developers and should go through a review process.


You know how it works - great tools for everyone originate as great 
tools for developers.

Andrei
Dec 28 2013
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-12-28 21:44, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 You know how it works - great tools for everyone originate as great
 tools for developers.


For some tools it's more obvious that they are benefit to both end users 
and core developers. See the post by H. S. Teoh: 
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/l9mmfd$1tte$1 digitalmars.com#post-mailman.85.1388262606.15871.digitalmars-d:40puremagic.com

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Dec 29 2013
prev sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Saturday, 28 December 2013 at 20:44:10 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:

 You know how it works - great tools for everyone originate as 
 great tools for developers.

 Andrei


There is a very practical concern in separation - end-user tools 
should be packages as part of compiler distribution. Right now I 
chose tools to add to Arch Linux `dlang-tools` package based on 
my own judgement. I'd prefer it to be standard obviously.
Dec 29 2013