On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 11:27 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > Presumably this is a four-state vote:
> >
> > +1 approve
> > 0 cannot decide
> > -1 disapprove
> > -- no opinion
> >
> > Anyone not emailing is deemed to have cast a -- vote all of which are
> > automatically
On Friday, March 04, 2011 11:12:00 Russel Winder wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 10:10 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>
> > We've never really discussed that. Thus far, anyone who posted on the
> > newsgroup could vote. Now, if there were a bunch of votes from unknown
> > folks and that
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 10:10 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[ . . . ]
> We've never really discussed that. Thus far, anyone who posted on the
> newsgroup
> could vote. Now, if there were a bunch of votes from unknown folks and that
> definitely shifted the vote, then I would fully expect those vo
On Friday, March 04, 2011 09:52:17 Russel Winder wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 09:27 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>
> > > - 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 n
On 3/4/11 11:52 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 09:27 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[ . . . ]
- 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 af
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 09:27 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > - 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.
> >
> >
On 3/4/11 5:32 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:23:43 +, 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
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:23:43 +, 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
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 13:06 -0500, jasonw wrote:
> 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 threa
Am 01.03.2011 20:19, schrieb dsimcha:
> == Quote from jasonw (u...@webmails.org)'s article
>> 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 ar
== Quote from jasonw (u...@webmails.org)'s article
> 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 thread
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
