On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 23:05:29 David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 March 2012 at 21:51:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > Actually, I think that most proposals have been reviewed for
> > only two weeks
> > before voting, but regardless, clearly std.log needs more
> > review.
>
>
On Wednesday, 7 March 2012 at 21:51:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Actually, I think that most proposals have been reviewed for
only two weeks
before voting, but regardless, clearly std.log needs more
review.
I had the four week for std.csv in mind when I wrote that, but
yeah, I think it was
On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 22:42:51 David Nadlinger wrote:
> In total, it will then have lasted four weeks, similar to what we
> had for previous proposals. After that, a one-week vote (will be
> announced separately) is planned to take place.
Actually, I think that most proposals have been revi
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
> The review of Jose Armando Garcia Sancio's std.log library for inclusion
> into Phobos is currently in progress at the digitalmars.D news group [1].
> It was scheduled to end yesterday, but as the discussion is still in
> progress on severa
The review of Jose Armando Garcia Sancio's std.log library for
inclusion into Phobos is currently in progress at the
digitalmars.D news group [1]. It was scheduled to end yesterday,
but as the discussion is still in progress on several design
questions, the review period has been extended until
