On Thursday, June 13, 2013 05:42:43 Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 June 2013 at 03:23:54 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> 
> wrote:
> > If it's not pull-request ready, then it's not showing how it would fit into Phobos.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> > Where do they fit into Phobos?
> 
> This has been what I'm challenging. The problem I'm trying to solve, and probably inappropriately doing so as part of the formal review, is as below.
> 
> 1. We do not have a formal way to confirm a library should be put into Phobos

What's there to confirm? Anyone who wants it to be in Phobos can prepare it for review, and if it passes the vote, it's in. If the programmer doing it wants to try and figure out ahead of time whether a particular library or piece of functionality might be acceptable, they can just ask, and while that may not give a definitive answer, it should avoid the cases where it's an obvious no.

> 2. When Phobos does not provide the supporting modules we do not have a formal way to answer "Where do they fit in?"

I would expect that the answer to that is generally either:

1. Get the supporting stuff into Phobos first.

or

2. Make it private to what's being submitted for review, and the private functionality can be moved into the public API where appropriate later (either through pull requests if it's small or other reviews if it's large - though if it's particularly large, I would think that it would be best to get it into Phobos on its own first).

It's already happened in the past that some functionality has been private to a module and not been put into Phobos' public API. That's essentially what happened with portions of std.regex which have recently been voted in as part of the new std.uni.

> I'm having a hard time concisely expressing myself with this. In principle I completely understand why you're taking this position, but practically I don't see it.
> 
> Let me go back to real examples: https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/orange
> 
> Orange has a directory for 'tests.' Phobos has generally not had unittests separate from the function/module being tested. Is that unacceptable? I don't know, there certainly was no objection when asked.

I believe that I've objected every time that it's been suggested and I was involved in the thread, but I don't know what the consensus of the Phobos devs would be on that.

> The repository provides a means to build the source into a library. Does it really make it harder to review because someone can build and use the code without checking out dmd, druntime, phobos and building themselves a testable Phobos library?
> 
> There is also a wiki folder, it has an orange ball. Ok, yes there are distractions.
> 
> I'll admit, I started from the docs, diving into the code as I needed and had I started from the github repository it wouldn't have been obvious where things would go in Phobos.

I think that it pretty much comes down to this: Someone who wants to submit something to Phobos gets it to the point that it could be merged into Phobos as-is if it were voted in. If there are questions, they can ask in the newsgroup ahead of time, but in some cases, they're likely just going to have to decide themselves on what they think the best way to do it is. If such a decision is not acceptable, then it can then be examined as part of the review process.

But essentially what it comes down to is that the submitter submits something which they think is in a state which could be merged into Phobos, and then it's examined during the review process, and the feedback generated during the review process leads to whatever adjustments need to be made. And if it still isn't acceptable at that point, then presumably, it'll fail the vote (or not even get voted on if it's clearly not ready yet).

- Jonathan M Davis

On 2013-06-13 05:42, Jesse Phillips wrote:

> This has been what I'm challenging. The problem I'm trying to solve, and
> probably inappropriately doing so as part of the formal review, is as
> below.
>
> 1. We do not have a formal way to confirm a library should be put into
> Phobos
> 2. When Phobos does not provide the supporting modules we do not have a
> formal way to answer "Where do they fit in?"

How about we just stop the reviewing of std.serialization right now. This arguing is leading nowhere. We can push back std.serialization one place in the review queue and start with the next module in line. We can continue reviewing std.serialization the next time it's time for a new module to be reviewed. By then I will have finished merging it into Phobos.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-06-10 18:11, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> Today we start the formal review of std.serialization (Orange). This
> library is authored by Jacob Carlborg and has been around through the
> D1/Tango days.
>
> Please take some time in the next 2 weeks to provide feedback on the
> library. Some things to know (from
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/kinpnv$ven$1@digitalmars.com)

I have finished merging std.serialization into Phobos. Branch is available here:

https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/phobos/tree/serialization

I haven't been able to build the documentation yet, I'm getting this error:

$ make -f posix.mak html DOC_OUTPUT_DIR=/Users/jacob/development/d/dlang/d-programming-language.org/web/phobos-prerelease

make: *** No rule to make target `/Users/jacob/development/d/dlang/d-programming-language.org/web/phobos-prerelease/std_serialization_attribute.html', needed by `html'.  Stop.

It's up to you if we should continue with the review at this point.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Thursday, 13 June 2013 at 06:00:15 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
> Nope. The whole point of a review process is to see if it can be *accepted* into Phobos. That is to say, it's already merged and mostly debugged.

In that case, we need to make sure the formal review includes a Phobos dev that has examined the integration into Phobos and has made approval for this specific requirement.

On 2013-06-10 18:11, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> Today we start the formal review of std.serialization (Orange). This
> library is authored by Jacob Carlborg and has been around through the
> D1/Tango days.
>
> Please take some time in the next 2 weeks to provide feedback on the
> library. Some things to know (from
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/kinpnv$ven$1@digitalmars.com)

I have finally been able to generate the documentation with the proper styles:

file:///Users/doob/Dropbox/Public/docs/std.serialization/index.html

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-06-15 13:53, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

> file:///Users/doob/Dropbox/Public/docs/std.serialization/index.html

Of course I copied the wrong link :( Here's the correct one:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18386187/docs/std.serialization/index.html

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg