Following my "Is it time for a Unicode update of std.uni?" post in D group, I would like to try out to sponsor this effort for "Issue 16416 - Phobos std.uni out of date (should be updated to latest Unicode standard)" [1]

For me, this, too, is an experiment to find out if it's possible to move specific issues/topics forward. And maybe even find people that are open to contact work too. For me, all these things are pretty related.

So, not knowing how much work it is, nor knowing what a good amount would be, I took the other route and asked me, what is it worth for me to get it done? Note: Getting #16416 done is not critical for me; most likely, I could even live with the current state of std.uni. On the other hand, std.uni is a very fundamental building block, and having it up to date and maybe even extended should be much value to D.

So, I'm offering $750 to get it done.

Besides getting the work done, there is one constraint: The work needs to get into Phobos. It doesn't make sense to have it sit around, because it's not being merged. I don't have any clue who is in charge, who decides this. Or if there need to be some conditions full-filled so that the result gets merged.

[1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16416

-- 
Robert M. Münch
http://www.saphirion.com
smarter | better | faster

On Monday, 4 May 2020 at 17:01:01 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
> Besides getting the work done, there is one constraint: The work needs to get into Phobos. It doesn't make sense to have it sit around, because it's not being merged. I don't have any clue who is in charge, who decides this. Or if there need to be some conditions full-filled so that the result gets merged.

I feel like this is going to be the biggest obstacle. I worked on a bug bounty in the past, made a pull request, and it just sat there for months. It's a waste of time to try and get anything merged. Especially on the scale that this would be at.

On 2020-05-04 17:30:41 +0000, Arine said:

> I feel like this is going to be the biggest obstacle. I worked on a bug bounty in the past, made a pull request, and it just sat there for months. It's a waste of time to try and get anything merged. Especially on the scale that this would be at.

Thanks for the feedback. Was the PR eventually merged? Did you get any feedback why it wasn't merged, what needs to be done so that it gets merged, who decides this, etc.?

-- 
Robert M. Münch
http://www.saphirion.com
smarter | better | faster

On Monday, 4 May 2020 at 17:01:01 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
> Following my "Is it time for a Unicode update of std.uni?" post in D group, I would like to try out to sponsor this effort for "Issue 16416 - Phobos std.uni out of date (should be updated to latest Unicode standard)" [1]

>
> So, I'm offering $750 to get it done.
>
> Besides getting the work done, there is one constraint: The work needs to get into Phobos. It doesn't make sense to have it sit around, because it's not being merged. I don't have any clue who is in charge, who decides this. Or if there need to be some conditions full-filled so that the result gets merged.
>
> [1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16416

Never used std.uni as far as I know ;) _BUT_ I think this is a great initiative, thanks!

Maybe you want to add an additional constraint... It would be great if this would result in a tool, scripts or at least a simple-to-follow to-do (say Wiki?!)... so best case we could use this also for the next updates / releases in the future?!

On Monday, 4 May 2020 at 19:26:28 UTC, notna wrote:
> On Monday, 4 May 2020 at 17:01:01 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
>> Following my "Is it time for a Unicode update of std.uni?" post in D group, I would like to try out to sponsor this effort for "Issue 16416 - Phobos std.uni out of date (should be updated to latest Unicode standard)" [1]
>
>>
>> So, I'm offering $750 to get it done.
>>
>> Besides getting the work done, there is one constraint: The work needs to get into Phobos. It doesn't make sense to have it sit around, because it's not being merged. I don't have any clue who is in charge, who decides this. Or if there need to be some conditions full-filled so that the result gets merged.
>>
>> [1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16416
>
> Never used std.uni as far as I know ;) _BUT_ I think this is a great initiative, thanks!
>
> Maybe you want to add an additional constraint... It would be great if this would result in a tool, scripts or at least a simple-to-follow to-do (say Wiki?!)... so best case we could use this also for the next updates / releases in the future?!

sorry, think this is what you want with 2) :O So just great, BIG thanks!

On Monday, 4 May 2020 at 17:30:41 UTC, Arine wrote:
> On Monday, 4 May 2020 at 17:01:01 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
>> Besides getting the work done, there is one constraint: The work needs to get into Phobos. It doesn't make sense to have it sit around, because it's not being merged. I don't have any clue who is in charge, who decides this. Or if there need to be some conditions full-filled so that the result gets merged.
>
> I feel like this is going to be the biggest obstacle.

If changes to phobos do not bring breaking changes then I dont see how update to std.uni might not be merged

On 05/05/2020 7:26 AM, notna wrote:
> Maybe you want to add an additional constraint... It would be great if this would result in a tool, scripts or at least a simple-to-follow to-do (say Wiki?!)... so best case we could use this also for the next updates / releases in the future?!

It wouldn't help.

The reason we can't just grab a newer copy of the unicode database and throw it into Phobos is because the format was changed.

On 2020-05-04 21:14:49 +0000, welkam said:

> If changes to phobos do not bring breaking changes then I dont see how update to std.uni might not be merged

Well, but that's a weak statement for an invest.

If unicode is developing in a way that results in breaking changes, what to do? Never update? Doesn't make sense...

So, breaking-changes because unicode requires these, have to be taken IMO.

-- 
Robert M. Münch
http://www.saphirion.com
smarter | better | faster

On 2020-05-04 21:34:27 +0000, rikki cattermole said:

> On 05/05/2020 7:26 AM, notna wrote:
>> Maybe you want to add an additional constraint... It would be great if this would result in a tool, scripts or at least a simple-to-follow to-do (say Wiki?!)... so best case we could use this also for the next updates / releases in the future?!
> 
> The reason we can't just grab a newer copy of the unicode database and throw it into Phobos is because the format was changed.

Sure, nevertheless, I think it makes sense to have the reproducibility of the process in mind. Maybe not with a script that lasts for 10 years. But the process, some tools for a specific version, which can be used as inspiration for upcoming changes.

IMO it makes a lot of sense for D to keep up close with the unicode development.

-- 
Robert M. Münch
http://www.saphirion.com
smarter | better | faster

On 05/05/2020 9:05 PM, Robert M. Münch wrote:
> On 2020-05-04 21:34:27 +0000, rikki cattermole said:
> 
>> On 05/05/2020 7:26 AM, notna wrote:
>>> Maybe you want to add an additional constraint... It would be great if this would result in a tool, scripts or at least a simple-to-follow to-do (say Wiki?!)... so best case we could use this also for the next updates / releases in the future?!
>>
>> The reason we can't just grab a newer copy of the unicode database and throw it into Phobos is because the format was changed.
> 
> Sure, nevertheless, I think it makes sense to have the reproducibility of the process in mind. Maybe not with a script that lasts for 10 years. But the process, some tools for a specific version, which can be used as inspiration for upcoming changes.

Strange, I thought they were in the repo.

Okay after looking through his fork of Phobos to see if its lying around somewhere, it looks like we need to hear from Dmitry Olshansky.