Re: review queue: next?
Ok, I have made a short summary for std.logger http://forum.dlang.org/post/odehsxespizfyujbc...@forum.dlang.org Robert, can please write me an e-mail so that we can proceed with signals?
Re: review queue: next?
On Sunday, 13 October 2013 at 13:12:35 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Sunday, 13 October 2013 at 12:12:08 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: Dicebot, Robert Klotzner would like to start review of the `std.signal` module: http://forum.dlang.org/post/siwjrbtfoyyafyvzd...@forum.dlang.org If you are agree to be a review manager for this module, we can start the formal review after the Robert Schadek's std.logger. Sure, assuming `std.serialization` won't be ready for another round of review by that time. It looks like we finished std.logger review. Is it time to make some conclusion?
Re: review queue: next?
On Tuesday, 29 October 2013 at 07:30:41 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: It looks like we finished std.logger review. Is it time to make some conclusion? Sorry, having lot of distraction lately. I am hoping to make a summary for std.logger and proceed with the queue within a week or two.
Re: review queue: next?
On 10/29/2013 11:02 AM, Dicebot wrote: On Tuesday, 29 October 2013 at 07:30:41 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: It looks like we finished std.logger review. Is it time to make some conclusion? Sorry, having lot of distraction lately. I am hoping to make a summary for std.logger and proceed with the queue within a week or two. Sounds good, as I need at least one evening to finish the doc for multilogger.
Re: review queue: next?
On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 14:21:17 UTC, Dicebot wrote: While Jacob is working on improving std.serialization, there is some time to do more reviews. Review manager role does not seem to be very stressing, so I can step up as one for any of the projects currently in queue as soon as their authors express the desire to do so. Dicebot, Robert Klotzner would like to start review of the `std.signal` module: http://forum.dlang.org/post/siwjrbtfoyyafyvzd...@forum.dlang.org If you are agree to be a review manager for this module, we can start the formal review after the Robert Schadek's std.logger.
Re: review queue: next?
On Sunday, 13 October 2013 at 12:12:08 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: Dicebot, Robert Klotzner would like to start review of the `std.signal` module: http://forum.dlang.org/post/siwjrbtfoyyafyvzd...@forum.dlang.org If you are agree to be a review manager for this module, we can start the formal review after the Robert Schadek's std.logger. Sure, assuming `std.serialization` won't be ready for another round of review by that time.
Re: review queue: next?
+1 signal
Re: review queue: next?
On Wednesday, 2 October 2013 at 15:46:06 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote: On Wednesday, 2 October 2013 at 15:07:43 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: On Sunday, 29 September 2013 at 15:11:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Sunday, 29 September 2013 at 14:58:17 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: It looks like we finished review of std.d.lexer. Do you have any plans to start review for Robert Schadek's std.logger? Brian has made several quick fixes/modifications and I am expecting that either second review or final voting will take pretty soon. That is why I did not move forward with other review queue proposals. Right now I am awaiting Brians mail with some details regarding outcome of first review, something will happen as soon as it will arrive. I guess std.logger will be the very next one. OK, I see. May I ask: who can vote? Only old community members or everybody? Any additional conditions? All can vote. Voting may include one condition for acceptance or a brief explanation of why it is rejected. Discussion of opinion should not be in the voting thread. What happens if I vote Yes with condition, but module developer will not satisfy the condition? My vote will be calculated as No, as Yes, or will not calculated at all? In which term module developer should satisfy the condition if he wants to do this? Before merge pull request to the Phobos?
Re: review queue: next?
On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 14:13:58 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: What happens if I vote Yes with condition, but module developer will not satisfy the condition? My vote will be calculated as No, as Yes, or will not calculated at all? In which term module developer should satisfy the condition if he wants to do this? Before merge pull request to the Phobos? Initially it will be counted as No vote. Then, if clear Yes vote count is not enough to get the module into Phobos, Yes, but votes will be evaluated. If those can make the difference, module author will be given the opportunity to satisfy the condition(s) and turn this vote into clear Yes without any additional formal review and/or voting. If those do not make the difference, proposal is simply marked as rejected.
Re: review queue: next?
On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 14:43:55 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: OK, I see. How many conditions I can add? Only one, a few related (for example, documentation issues), or unlimited? One very specific issue at most. Everything else should go as No. http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/Process#Voting
Re: review queue: next?
On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 14:23:42 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 14:13:58 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: What happens if I vote Yes with condition, but module developer will not satisfy the condition? My vote will be calculated as No, as Yes, or will not calculated at all? In which term module developer should satisfy the condition if he wants to do this? Before merge pull request to the Phobos? Initially it will be counted as No vote. Then, if clear Yes vote count is not enough to get the module into Phobos, Yes, but votes will be evaluated. If those can make the difference, module author will be given the opportunity to satisfy the condition(s) and turn this vote into clear Yes without any additional formal review and/or voting. If those do not make the difference, proposal is simply marked as rejected. OK, I see. How many conditions I can add? Only one, a few related (for example, documentation issues), or unlimited?
Re: review queue: next?
On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 14:43:55 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 14:23:42 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 14:13:58 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: What happens if I vote Yes with condition, but module developer will not satisfy the condition? My vote will be calculated as No, as Yes, or will not calculated at all? In which term module developer should satisfy the condition if he wants to do this? Before merge pull request to the Phobos? Initially it will be counted as No vote. Then, if clear Yes vote count is not enough to get the module into Phobos, Yes, but votes will be evaluated. If those can make the difference, module author will be given the opportunity to satisfy the condition(s) and turn this vote into clear Yes without any additional formal review and/or voting. If those do not make the difference, proposal is simply marked as rejected. OK, I see. How many conditions I can add? Only one, a few related (for example, documentation issues), or unlimited? The goal is to make it as quick as possible to get the submission into Phobos. If there is one item which you consider strong about should prevent the inclusion then it allows the Review Manager to switch your vote to a yes when that is resolved. But it also has the benefit that the maintainer could put it at the top of his list of improvements even if it is accepted. If you have more than one, tracking the state of the vote is too challenging. Similarly if it is not specific than there is no way for a Review Manager can't judge when it matches your opinion. You could say something like Yes if Documentation is improved by, changing ___ and ___. This is a blocker. Note you could list hundreds of conditions, but the Review Manager can choose to (and recommended to) just take that as No and the maintainer would have no obligation to response.
Re: review queue: next?
On Sunday, 29 September 2013 at 15:11:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Sunday, 29 September 2013 at 14:58:17 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: It looks like we finished review of std.d.lexer. Do you have any plans to start review for Robert Schadek's std.logger? Brian has made several quick fixes/modifications and I am expecting that either second review or final voting will take pretty soon. That is why I did not move forward with other review queue proposals. Right now I am awaiting Brians mail with some details regarding outcome of first review, something will happen as soon as it will arrive. I guess std.logger will be the very next one. OK, I see. May I ask: who can vote? Only old community members or everybody? Any additional conditions?
Re: review queue: next?
On Wednesday, 2 October 2013 at 15:07:43 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: May I ask: who can vote? Only old community members or everybody? Any additional conditions? As far as I know, anyone can vote. At least I have never asked for permission when voting :) Though when counting votes, ones from Phobos developers may be considered more important.
Re: review queue: next?
On Wednesday, 2 October 2013 at 15:07:43 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: On Sunday, 29 September 2013 at 15:11:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Sunday, 29 September 2013 at 14:58:17 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: It looks like we finished review of std.d.lexer. Do you have any plans to start review for Robert Schadek's std.logger? Brian has made several quick fixes/modifications and I am expecting that either second review or final voting will take pretty soon. That is why I did not move forward with other review queue proposals. Right now I am awaiting Brians mail with some details regarding outcome of first review, something will happen as soon as it will arrive. I guess std.logger will be the very next one. OK, I see. May I ask: who can vote? Only old community members or everybody? Any additional conditions? All can vote. Voting may include one condition for acceptance or a brief explanation of why it is rejected. Discussion of opinion should not be in the voting thread.
Re: review queue: next?
On Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 09:14:59 UTC, Robert Schadek wrote: On 09/10/2013 03:45 PM, Dicebot wrote: done and done (the design of my logger is based on what I distilled from the old discussion) Thanks! You will be next after Brian then (pardon me for wanting std.d.lexer so much :P) No problem, it might be good though to get so bashing beforehand to make it review worthy. It looks like we finished review of std.d.lexer. Do you have any plans to start review for Robert Schadek's std.logger?
Re: review queue: next?
On Sunday, 29 September 2013 at 14:58:17 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote: It looks like we finished review of std.d.lexer. Do you have any plans to start review for Robert Schadek's std.logger? Brian has made several quick fixes/modifications and I am expecting that either second review or final voting will take pretty soon. That is why I did not move forward with other review queue proposals. Right now I am awaiting Brians mail with some details regarding outcome of first review, something will happen as soon as it will arrive. I guess std.logger will be the very next one.
Re: review queue: next?
On 09/10/2013 03:45 PM, Dicebot wrote: done and done (the design of my logger is based on what I distilled from the old discussion) Thanks! You will be next after Brian then (pardon me for wanting std.d.lexer so much :P) No problem, it might be good though to get so bashing beforehand to make it review worthy.
Re: review queue: next?
On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 14:21:17 UTC, Dicebot wrote: While Jacob is working on improving std.serialization, there is some time to do more reviews. Review manager role does not seem to be very stressing, so I can step up as one for any of the projects currently in queue as soon as their authors express the desire to do so. It would be nice to start a review for the std.decimal. I asked a question about library with high-precision doubles, but nobody point me to this: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/dcrbzbpjeijpzapvl...@forum.dlang.org So, may I ask: Paul D. Anderson, do you still work on this module? What does already work, what should we do to include it in Phobos?
Re: review queue: next?
On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 20:24:43 UTC, Robert Schadek wrote: On 09/09/2013 04:21 PM, Dicebot wrote: While Jacob is working on improving std.serialization, there is some time to do more reviews. Review manager role does not seem to be very stressing, so I can step up as one for any of the projects currently in queue as soon as their authors express the desire to do so. put some concrete destroying in my logger You should add it to http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue then, there is also a link to an old review thread of `std.log` by Jose Armando Garcia which may be of interest to you as people are likely to ask similar questions :)
Re: review queue: next?
On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 20:52:09 UTC, Brian Schott wrote: On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 14:21:17 UTC, Dicebot wrote: While Jacob is working on improving std.serialization, there is some time to do more reviews. Review manager role does not seem to be very stressing, so I can step up as one for any of the projects currently in queue as soon as their authors express the desire to do so. Personally, I'd love to move forward with std.d.lexer - Brian, what is your opinion on this? Other than some unit test coverage, I think the lexer is ready. Good! I'll start a review thread within a day.
Re: review queue: next?
On 09/10/2013 01:43 PM, Dicebot wrote: You should add it to http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue then, there is also a link to an old review thread of `std.log` by Jose Armando Garcia which may be of interest to you as people are likely to ask similar questions :) done and done (the design of my logger is based on what I distilled from the old discussion)
Re: review queue: next?
On Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 12:09:42 UTC, Robert Schadek wrote: On 09/10/2013 01:43 PM, Dicebot wrote: You should add it to http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue then, there is also a link to an old review thread of `std.log` by Jose Armando Garcia which may be of interest to you as people are likely to ask similar questions :) done and done (the design of my logger is based on what I distilled from the old discussion) Thanks! You will be next after Brian then (pardon me for wanting std.d.lexer so much :P)
Re: review queue: next?
On Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 13:45:37 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 12:09:42 UTC, Robert Schadek wrote: On 09/10/2013 01:43 PM, Dicebot wrote: You should add it to http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue then, there is also a link to an old review thread of `std.log` by Jose Armando Garcia which may be of interest to you as people are likely to ask similar questions :) done and done (the design of my logger is based on what I distilled from the old discussion) Thanks! You will be next after Brian then (pardon me for wanting std.d.lexer so much :P) https://github.com/Hackerpilot/phobos/tree/master/std/d I'll work on increasing the test coverage later this evening.
review queue: next?
While Jacob is working on improving std.serialization, there is some time to do more reviews. Review manager role does not seem to be very stressing, so I can step up as one for any of the projects currently in queue as soon as their authors express the desire to do so. Personally, I'd love to move forward with std.d.lexer - Brian, what is your opinion on this?
Re: review queue: next?
On 2013-09-09 16:21, Dicebot wrote: Personally, I'd love to move forward with std.d.lexer - Brian, what is your opinion on this? I would love to see that as well. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: review queue: next?
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:21:16PM +0200, Dicebot wrote: While Jacob is working on improving std.serialization, there is some time to do more reviews. Review manager role does not seem to be very stressing, so I can step up as one for any of the projects currently in queue as soon as their authors express the desire to do so. Personally, I'd love to move forward with std.d.lexer - Brian, what is your opinion on this? +1. I've been itching to get a high-quality D lexer in my hands. T -- Who told you to swim in Crocodile Lake without life insurance??
Re: review queue: next?
On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 14:52:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:21:16PM +0200, Dicebot wrote: While Jacob is working on improving std.serialization, there is some time to do more reviews. Review manager role does not seem to be very stressing, so I can step up as one for any of the projects currently in queue as soon as their authors express the desire to do so. Personally, I'd love to move forward with std.d.lexer - Brian, what is your opinion on this? +1. I've been itching to get a high-quality D lexer in my hands. T ..and I'd love it to be nicely field tested by the time DDMD is done so that latter can possibly be ported to use standard lexer :P
Re: review queue: next?
On 09/09/2013 04:21 PM, Dicebot wrote: While Jacob is working on improving std.serialization, there is some time to do more reviews. Review manager role does not seem to be very stressing, so I can step up as one for any of the projects currently in queue as soon as their authors express the desire to do so. put some concrete destroying in my logger
Re: review queue: next?
On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 14:21:17 UTC, Dicebot wrote: While Jacob is working on improving std.serialization, there is some time to do more reviews. Review manager role does not seem to be very stressing, so I can step up as one for any of the projects currently in queue as soon as their authors express the desire to do so. Personally, I'd love to move forward with std.d.lexer - Brian, what is your opinion on this? Other than some unit test coverage, I think the lexer is ready.
