== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article > On 3/4/11 5:32 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: > > On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:23:43 +0000, dsimcha wrote: > > > >> Ok, so that's one issue to cross off the list. To summarize the > >> discussion so far, most of it's revolved around the issue of > >> automatically determining how many CPUs are available and therefore how > >> many threads the default pool should have. Previously, std.parallelism > >> had been using core.cpuid for this task. This module doesn't work yet > >> on 64 bits and doesn't and isn't supposed to determine how many > >> sockets/physical CPUs are available. This was a point of > >> miscommunication. > >> > >> std.parallelism now uses OS-specific APIs to determine the total number > >> of cores available across all physical CPUs. This appears to Just Work > >> (TM) on 32-bit Windows, 32- and 64-bit Linux, and 32-bit Mac OS. > >> > >> We still need a volunteer to manage the review process. As a reminder, > >> for those of you who have been meaning to have a look but haven't, the > >> Git repository is at: > >> > >> https://github.com/dsimcha/std.parallelism > >> > >> The pre-compiled documentation is at: > >> > >> http://cis.jhu.edu/~dsimcha/d/phobos/std_parallelism.html > > > > I'll volunteer as the review manager. > > > > Since the module has been through a few reviews already, both in this > > group and on the Phobos mailing list, I don't think we need a lot more > > time for that. I suggest the following: > > > > - We give it one more week for the final review, starting today, 4 March. > > - If this review does not lead to major API changes, we start the vote > > next Friday, 11 March. Vote closes after one week, 18 March. > > > > How does this sound? > > > > -Lars > I suggest let's make the review three weeks and the vote one week. > Andrei
This sounds reasonable. Should I be doing anything besides following the thread and reacting accordingly?