In order to make phobos development more organized I've made a wiki page for
phobos bugs and tasks and added a few initial items that came to mind
http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PhobosToDo
I'm posting here to see if other people have any interest in using wiki for
this purpose (or in general if orginaizing phobos development is a good idea
at all). Personally I'd still like to hear anything from Walter about what
he thinks of any attempts to organize phobos development. It seems like a
pity to see the same bugs sitting around for release after release.

"Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle@mathworks.com> wrote in message news:dfplh3$2utf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In order to make phobos development more organized I've made a wiki page
> for phobos bugs and tasks and added a few initial items that came to mind
> http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PhobosToDo
> I'm posting here to see if other people have any interest in using wiki
> for this purpose (or in general if orginaizing phobos development is a
> good idea at all). Personally I'd still like to hear anything from Walter
> about what he thinks of any attempts to organize phobos development. It
> seems like a pity to see the same bugs sitting around for release after
> release.

I noticed Doug Clugston added a todo for std.math. huzzah!
Since the PhobosToDo wiki page is not the right place for full details about
a task I added individual wiki pages for specifics (with back links to
PhobosToDo). Now there are two more phobos pages PhobosNonUSDate and
PhobosMath2toMath waiting for more details about what the task is. Currently
they just have links to the newsgroup discussions about the issues.

"Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle@mathworks.com> wrote in message news:dfs9bh$24tr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle@mathworks.com> wrote in message news:dfplh3$2utf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > In order to make phobos development more organized I've made a wiki page for phobos bugs and tasks and added a few initial items that came to
mind
> > http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PhobosToDo
> > I'm posting here to see if other people have any interest in using wiki
> > for this purpose (or in general if orginaizing phobos development is a
> > good idea at all). Personally I'd still like to hear anything from
Walter
> > about what he thinks of any attempts to organize phobos development. It seems like a pity to see the same bugs sitting around for release after release.
>
> I noticed Doug Clugston added a todo for std.math. huzzah!
> Since the PhobosToDo wiki page is not the right place for full details
about
> a task I added individual wiki pages for specifics (with back links to PhobosToDo). Now there are two more phobos pages PhobosNonUSDate and PhobosMath2toMath waiting for more details about what the task is.
Currently
> they just have links to the newsgroup discussions about the issues.

I think using a wiki for this purpose is probably the best approach. With the latest documentation, each web page has a link to a wiki page for comments, suggestions, bugs, etc. How about just using the http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocComments/Phobos, which is linked to from the Phobos main page, for the todo list?

> I think using a wiki for this purpose is probably the best approach. With the latest documentation, each web page has a link to a wiki page for comments, suggestions, bugs, etc. How about just using the http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocComments/Phobos, which is linked to from the Phobos main page, for the todo list?

Hmm. I thought the DocComments were for comments about the documentation only. I'll check it out, though.

"Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dfvi03$n9i$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I think using a wiki for this purpose is probably the best approach.
With
> > the latest documentation, each web page has a link to a wiki page for comments, suggestions, bugs, etc. How about just using the http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocComments/Phobos, which is
linked
> > to from the Phobos main page, for the todo list?
>
> Hmm. I thought the DocComments were for comments about the documentation only. I'll check it out, though.

At the moment, I don't see much point in trying to divide up the two, as there isn't enough traffic to justify it, and because most issues will have a foot in both departments.