So, where do things stand with the review queue now? I thought that we were
getting ready to review std.benchmark, but that doesn't appear to have
materialized for whatever reason (and I get the impression that Andrei is busy
enough at the moment, that it's probably not the right time
Is there an actual review queue, or is this a product of the hive mind?
Looking at past review queue activities it seems like someone (usually Andrei)
posts a notice when the current review is finished, or nearly finished, and
then there is some back-and-forth on which one to do next.
If there
On Friday, 8 June 2012 at 15:44:06 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
So, where do things stand with the review queue now?
Maybe Jose could give an update on the std.log situation. Is it
ready for another round?
-Jonas
On 08.06.2012 19:43, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
So, where do things stand with the review queue now? I thought that we were
getting ready to review std.benchmark, but that doesn't appear to have
materialized for whatever reason (and I get the impression that Andrei is busy
enough at the m
On Friday, 8 June 2012 at 15:44:06 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
So, where do things stand with the review queue now? I thought
that we were
getting ready to review std.benchmark, but that doesn't appear
to have
materialized for whatever reason (and I get the impression that
Andrei is
Am Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:18:24 +0400
schrieb Dmitry Olshansky :
>
> I recall std.uuid was about to get reviewed. I'd vote for it, as it's
> nice and short module originating from C++ Boost.
>
I just updated my std.uuid branch to latest phobos/dmd. Seems this time
nothing broke, so std.uuid is re
On Saturday, June 09, 2012 09:34:51 Johannes Pfau wrote:
> I think the changes to opEquals were rolled back, but what are the
> correct signatures for opEquals and opCmp now?
For the moment, the correct way is to declare two overloads, both with const
parameters, with one being ref:
bool opEqual
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> So, where do things stand with the review queue now? I thought that we were
> getting ready to review std.benchmark, but that doesn't appear to have
> materialized for whatever reason (and I get the impression that Andrei is
> busy
> enough at t
On 09.06.2012 11:34, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:18:24 +0400
schrieb Dmitry Olshansky:
I recall std.uuid was about to get reviewed. I'd vote for it, as it's
nice and short module originating from C++ Boost.
I just updated my std.uuid branch to latest phobos/dmd. Seems this t
Am Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:01:06 +0400
schrieb Dmitry Olshansky :
> On 09.06.2012 11:34, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> > Am Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:18:24 +0400
> > schrieb Dmitry Olshansky:
> >
> >>
> >> I recall std.uuid was about to get reviewed. I'd vote for it, as
> >> it's nice and short module originating
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:43:47 +0200, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
So, where do things stand with the review queue now?
The last change to the ReviewQueue is two month old.
http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?action=archive&cmd=list&id=ReviewQueue
On 09.06.2012 20:21, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:01:06 +0400
schrieb Dmitry Olshansky:
On 09.06.2012 11:34, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:18:24 +0400
schrieb Dmitry Olshansky:
I recall std.uuid was about to get reviewed. I'd vote for it, as
it's nice and short
Is anything in the review queue
( http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?ReviewQueue ) ready to be reviewed?
If not we could probably start a review for std.hash:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/646
The review of the new std.path is drawing to a close and it looks like
another success! (Congratulations, Lars.) Lately, though, the queue of
stuff to review has been getting rather long, admittedly a problem we'd
like to have. I want to get a list of stuff that's ready or will be
ready in s
On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 19:34:28 Paul D. Anderson wrote:
> Is there an actual review queue, or is this a product of the hive mind?
>
> Looking at past review queue activities it seems like someone (usually
> Andrei) posts a notice when the current review is finished, or nearl
On 9/6/2011 7:34 PM, Paul D. Anderson wrote:
Is there an actual review queue, or is this a product of the hive mind?
Looking at past review queue activities it seems like someone (usually Andrei)
posts a notice when the current review is finished, or nearly finished, and
then there is some
On 9/7/11 1:54 AM, dsimcha wrote:
Right now, the review queue is maintained very informally via
discussions on this NG. Strictly speaking, it's not even a queue since
high-priority modules can cut in front of lower-priority modules that
have been waiting longer.
Must be a priority queue
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> It may be beneficial to formalize the review queue a bit better, but what
> we've
> been doing has worked fairly well thus far.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
I think informal works particularly well here. For several reasons, no
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 t
std.uni was recently accepted for inclusion in Phobos, and as far
as I'm aware there are no reviews currently in progress.
We currently have a backlog of several modules that are ready for
comments or review[1]. There seems to be no real schedule for
starting reviews other than "when someone p
This is just a short notice that I cleaned up the review queue
and introduced two new categories "Work in Progress" and
"Stalled":
http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue
It would be great if future review managers could keep an eye on:
1) Putting the module to the review que
eriod to start. As a
solution all requests for review should come with a tentative vote date
to prevent the module from being held in limbo indefinitely and move the
review queue along.
2. Reviews that prompt major changes right before the vote date are
stressful. A looming deadline is not c
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:06:02 -0700, Johannes Pfau
wrote:
Is anything in the review queue
( http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?ReviewQueue ) ready to be reviewed?
If not we could probably start a review for std.hash:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/646
I vote for
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:06:02 +0200
Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Is anything in the review queue
> ( http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?ReviewQueue ) ready to be
> reviewed?
>
> If not we could probably start a review for std.hash:
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/p
On Monday, July 16, 2012 14:58:27 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:06:02 +0200
>
> Johannes Pfau wrote:
> > Is anything in the review queue
> > ( http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?ReviewQueue ) ready to be
> > reviewed?
> >
> > If n
On 2012-07-16 13:58, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:06:02 +0200
Johannes Pfau wrote:
Is anything in the review queue
( http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?ReviewQueue ) ready to be
reviewed?
If not we could probably start a review for std.hash:
https://github.com/D-Programming
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:58:27 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:06:02 +0200
Johannes Pfau wrote:
Is anything in the review queue
( http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?ReviewQueue ) ready to be
reviewed?
If not we could probably start a review for std.hash:
https
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:22:46 -0400, dsimcha wrote:
std.process (New and much improved, by Steve Schveighoffer and IIRC Lars
Kylingstad also contributed. Personally I'd like this to be given a
high priority b/c the old std.process sucks so much and it's been
waiting so long for compiler bu
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:22:46 -0400, dsimcha wrote:
> The review of the new std.path is drawing to a close and it looks like
> another success! (Congratulations, Lars.) Lately, though, the queue of
> stuff to review has been getting rather long, admittedly a problem we'd
> like to have. I want t
Where is this new std.process btw.? Is it on github or somewhere?
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:07:53 +0300, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
Where is this new std.process btw.? Is it on github or somewhere?
I believe this is it:
https://github.com/kyllingstad/phobos/blob/new-std-process/std/process.d
--
Best regards,
Vladimirmailto:vladi...
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:12:49 -0400, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:07:53 +0300, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
Where is this new std.process btw.? Is it on github or somewhere?
I believe this is it:
https://github.com/kyllingstad/phobos/blob/new-std-process/std/process.d
J
"dsimcha" wrote in message
news:j1u0o8$2gdg$1...@digitalmars.com...
> The review of the new std.path is drawing to a close and it looks like
> another success! (Congratulations, Lars.) Lately, though, the queue of
> stuff to review has been getting rather long, admittedly a problem we'd
> li
Am 10.08.2011, 15:51 Uhr, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer
:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:22:46 -0400, dsimcha wrote:
std.process (New and much improved, by Steve Schveighoffer and IIRC
Lars Kylingstad also contributed. Personally I'd like this to be given
a high priority b/c the old std.process
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:25:44 +0200, Marco Leise wrote:
> Am 10.08.2011, 15:51 Uhr, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer
> :
>
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:22:46 -0400, dsimcha wrote:
>>
>>> std.process (New and much improved, by Steve Schveighoffer and IIRC
>>> Lars Kylingstad also contributed. Personally
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
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
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
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 th
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 a
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
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
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
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 ar
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 Jo
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
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 a
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 :
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.
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
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 P
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 rega
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 prop
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 cond
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#Vo
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 a
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
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 a
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 re
+1 signal
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
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.
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
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?
On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 19:50:51 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
std.uni was recently accepted for inclusion in Phobos, and as
far as I'm aware there are no reviews currently in progress.
We currently have a backlog of several modules that are ready
for comments or review[1]. There seems to be no
he vote count is usually fewer than a couple dozen.
Anyone disagree? I think it could really help move the review
queue along if people don't have to wrangle up a Review Manager.
Instead they could just post like Brian has done making sure they
aren't stepping on anyone's toes.
conflict of interest when the vote is done publicly and
the vote count is usually fewer than a couple dozen.
Anyone disagree? I think it could really help move the review
queue along if people don't have to wrangle up a Review
Manager. Instead they could just post like Brian has don
On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 19:50:51 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
std.uni was recently accepted for inclusion in Phobos, and as
far as I'm aware there are no reviews currently in progress.
We currently have a backlog of several modules that are ready
for comments or review[1]. There seems to be no
On Friday, 7 June 2013 at 22:52:47 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
Found the description of the process:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/Process
It's somewhat vague and could probably use some standard
announcement templates people could use.
Looks like it's actually two weeks of review, one week of
On Saturday, 8 June 2013 at 07:30:03 UTC, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
On Friday, 7 June 2013 at 22:52:47 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
Found the description of the process:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/Process
It's somewhat vague and could probably use some standard
announcement templates people could use
On 6/8/13 3:30 AM, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
On Friday, 7 June 2013 at 22:52:47 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
Found the description of the process:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/Process
It's somewhat vague and could probably use some standard announcement
templates people could use.
Looks like it's actual
On Saturday, 8 June 2013 at 10:21:58 UTC, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
I am pretty sure I was not the one deciding to start a vote for
std.net.curl back then.
Can't remember who was the review manager though.
That would have been me for the first time round, and then the
other David (i.e. Simcha) fo
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 09:26:09AM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/8/13 3:30 AM, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
> >On Friday, 7 June 2013 at 22:52:47 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
> >>Found the description of the process:
> >>http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/Process
> >>
> >>It's somewhat vague and could prob
On Saturday, 8 June 2013 at 13:26:06 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Why? The review manager does not have a particular interest in
getting the proposal accepted or refused; the role is there
just to ensure a fair process.
Andrei
The topic is whether someone could be review manager for their
On 6/8/13 10:19 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
If the review manager is also the author, wouldn't he have particular
interest in getting the proposal accepted?
Those should never be the same.
Andrei
On 2013-06-08 02:11, Jesse Phillips wrote:
I had contacted Jacob (std.serialize), but he said that he wouldn't be
available this week so I haven't made an announcement.
I'm available now.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Hey,
As mentioned elsewhere it would be nice to have a central place to
track reviews. I've now put the list that dsimcha put together on the
wiki. http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?ReviewQueue
Please feel free to change anything.
/Jonas
Since David kindly agreed to work some more on std.parallelism, there is
now time for carrying one review cycle on another library. I recall
there's work on:
* std.goodxml (status?)
* std.net (beyond mere libcurl bindings)
* std.path (improvements to path)
* A bunch of almost-finished projec
me time after I
> requested review for the "official" review period to start. As a
> solution all requests for review should come with a tentative vote date
> to prevent the module from being held in limbo indefinitely and move the
> review queue along.
>
> 2. Reviews
ficial"
review period to start. As a solution all requests for review should come with a
tentative vote date to prevent the module from being held in limbo indefinitely
and move the review queue along.
I know that reviews can be frustratingly slow. It's mainly because we have a
smalli
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
> A further issue with the review process is that the bulk of people won't look
> at
> something until it is actually released. I think the only way to deal with
> this
> is to be willing to correct deficiencies found after releas
On 3/28/2011 12:18 PM, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
A further issue with the review process is that the bulk of people won't look at
something until it is actually released. I think the only way to deal with this
is to be willing to correct de
Walter:
> I have thought in the past about putting such modules into another package,
> call
> it "foo" for lack of a better name, and put it in the dmd distribution. If
> the
> package pans out in real life, then move it to std. So, yes, I think your
> idea
> is a good one.
It's a nice ide
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:32:44 -0400, bearophile wrote:
> Walter:
>
>> I have thought in the past about putting such modules into another
>> package, call it "foo" for lack of a better name, and put it in the dmd
>> distribution. If the package pans out in real life, then move it to
>> std. So, yes
Graham Fawcett:
> I don't see the connection. '__future__' in Python isn't for experimental
> features, nor is it for introducing stdlib changes. It's a way to 'import'
> language features which become standard in later releases.
But the end result is the same: if they find troubles in a featur
On 28/03/11 21.19, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/28/2011 12:18 PM, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
A further issue with the review process is that the bulk of people
won't look at
something until it is actually released. I think the only way to deal
KennyTM~:
> Python's future statement provides features that will certainly be
> enabled. It's a feature to provide smoother code compatibility with
> earlier versions. Every decision is pretty much settled when it is
> available in __future__, and the only step left is to enable it by default.
On Mar 29, 11 04:04, bearophile wrote:
Graham Fawcett:
I don't see the connection. '__future__' in Python isn't for experimental
features, nor is it for introducing stdlib changes. It's a way to 'import'
language features which become standard in later releases.
But the end result is the same
On 03/28/2011 09:18 PM, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
A further issue with the review process is that the bulk of people won't look at
something until it is actually released. I think the only way to deal with this
is to be willing to correct d
On 03/28/2011 09:32 PM, bearophile wrote:
Walter:
I have thought in the past about putting such modules into another package, call
it "foo" for lack of a better name, and put it in the dmd distribution. If the
package pans out in real life, then move it to std. So, yes, I think your idea
is a g
On 03/28/2011 10:32 PM, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
On 28/03/11 21.19, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/28/2011 12:18 PM, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
A further issue with the review process is that the bulk of people
won't look at
something until it is a
On 28/03/2011 20:19, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/28/2011 12:18 PM, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
A further issue with the review process is that the bulk of people
won't look at
something until it is actually released. I think the only way to de
The review for the region allocator has completed, so we need to choos
something else to review now. I believe that the current items in the review
queue which are ready for review are
- std.log
- a CSV parsing module by Jesse Phillips
- std.benchmark
- GSoC changes to std.regex
There are a
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> The review for the region allocator has completed, so we need to choos
> something else to review now. I believe that the current items in the review
> queue which are ready for review are
>
> - std.log
Better late than
Dimitry's FReD library review looks to have been a success. (Not sure if
voting is technically over but it doesn't exactly look like it's going to come
down to the wire.) Congratulations, Dimitry. What's next in the review
queue? From my memory of previous times we&#x
On 2011-11-23 10:38, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
Hey,
As mentioned elsewhere it would be nice to have a central place to track
reviews. I've now put the list that dsimcha put together on the wiki.
http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?ReviewQueue
Please feel free to change anything.
/Jonas
That's grea
On 11/23/11 3:38 AM, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
Hey,
As mentioned elsewhere it would be nice to have a central place to track
reviews. I've now put the list that dsimcha put together on the wiki.
http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?ReviewQueue
Please feel free to change anything.
/Jonas
Now feature
On 3/20/2011 11:10 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Since David kindly agreed to work some more on std.parallelism, there is
now time for carrying one review cycle on another library. I recall
there's work on:
* std.goodxml (status?)
* std.net (beyond mere libcurl bindings)
* std.path (improveme
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> Since David kindly agreed to work some more on std.parallelism, there is
> now time for carrying one review cycle on another library. I recall
> there's work on:
>
> * std.goodxml (status?)
>
> * std.net (beyond mere libcurl bindings)
>
> * std.path (improvements
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:10:20 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Since David kindly agreed to work some more on std.parallelism, there is
> now time for carrying one review cycle on another library. I recall
> there's work on:
>
> * std.goodxml (status?)
>
> * std.net (beyond mere libcurl bindin
1 - 100 of 362 matches
Mail list logo
