www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Anything up for formal review?

reply "Tyler Jameson Little" <beatgammit gmail.com> writes:
According to the review queue, there there are 5 items that are 
currently ready for review. There was even a thread a while back 
about starting another formal review, where both Jacob Carlborg 
and Brian Schott said they're ready for review: 
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/gjonxudcdiwrlkgwwgbq forum.dlang.org 
(it mostly digressed into bickering about the review process...).

Is there currently a formal review under way? I'm particularly 
interested in the outcome of the formal review of std.serialize, 
because I'd like to see a decent replacement for std.json (I'd be 
willing to contribute as well).

I havn't seen anything in this mailing list (except the above and 
one by Walter Bright) for a while, and I haven't seen any pull 
requests for any of the items in the review queue.
Aug 08 2013
next sibling parent "Kapps" <opantm2+spam gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:53:18 UTC, Tyler Jameson Little 
wrote:
 According to the review queue, there there are 5 items that are 
 currently ready for review. There was even a thread a while 
 back about starting another formal review, where both Jacob 
 Carlborg and Brian Schott said they're ready for review: 
 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/gjonxudcdiwrlkgwwgbq forum.dlang.org 
 (it mostly digressed into bickering about the review 
 process...).

 Is there currently a formal review under way? I'm particularly 
 interested in the outcome of the formal review of 
 std.serialize, because I'd like to see a decent replacement for 
 std.json (I'd be willing to contribute as well).

 I havn't seen anything in this mailing list (except the above 
 and one by Walter Bright) for a while, and I haven't seen any 
 pull requests for any of the items in the review queue.

I'm also very interested in seeing the status of std.serialize. The lack of a serialization library in phobos is rather disappointing, and it would be nice to see the situation rectified. From what I can tell, orange/std.serialize seems quite nice, but I haven't personally tried it yet as I'd rather avoid third party dependencies and have been waiting for it to make it into phobos instead.
Aug 08 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jesse Phillips" <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:53:18 UTC, Tyler Jameson Little 
wrote:
 I havn't seen anything in this mailing list (except the above 
 and one by Walter Bright) for a while, and I haven't seen any 
 pull requests for any of the items in the review queue.

I haven't come back to std.serialize since the reformed review process has been established. I was hoping someone would be willing to run a Formal Review on the review process so that any ambiguity or disagreements could be worked out. Instead I went and played around a bit: https://github.com/opticron/ProtocolBuffer http://he-the-great.livejournal.com/46498.html I'm by no means the only authority in starting a review (there is no review wizard). Just need an active member to take up the task, where active is not specifically defined. As for the current state of std.serialization. Jacob has the docs sorted out with the exception of no sidebar entry: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18386187/docs/std.serialization/index.html I wanted to look over the code with an eye for the new review requirements, and also running -cov against the unittests (Jacob reported 88% where I think 80% is library acceptable) So please, if someone is willing to take std.serialize or even another item from the review queue, do so. I will be happy to assist, Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com It isn't very hard or even that time consuming. (One of the reasons I've put off starting std.serialize is because I want to dig in and provide a review for the code and haven't become interested again since the review process distraction) --------------- On a related note, I don't think std.serialize is a replacement for std.json, instead std.serialize would be built on std.json like it is for std.xml (at this time json is not available output).
Aug 08 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
09-Aug-2013 04:53, Tyler Jameson Little пишет:
 According to the review queue, there there are 5 items that are
 currently ready for review. There was even a thread a while back about
 starting another formal review, where both Jacob Carlborg and Brian
 Schott said they're ready for review:
 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/gjonxudcdiwrlkgwwgbq forum.dlang.org (it
 mostly digressed into bickering about the review process...).

Truth be told the wiki page is a bit misleading: std.compression.lz77 - might be ready for review (as in code) but needs to address fundamental design decisions and get the right interface for all streaming (de)compressors. std.idioms - a great idea but at the moment it hardly pulls its weight providing only a couple of helpers That IMHO leaves 2 non-controversial items on the plate: std.d.lexer and std.serialize that would be great to review. Or in case of std.serialize re-review. For other stuff would be important to know what the true status is.
 Is there currently a formal review under way?

Nope.
I'm particularly
 interested in the outcome of the formal review of std.serialize, because
 I'd like to see a decent replacement for std.json (I'd be willing to
 contribute as well).

Then you would need to design a new std.json or land a hand in such a project. std.serialization should simply use it then as a backend not the other way around.
 I havn't seen anything in this mailing list (except the above and one by
 Walter Bright) for a while, and I haven't seen any pull requests for any
 of the items in the review queue.

Well previously reviewed std.uni got pulled recently. Things are moving but slooowly. -- Dmitry Olshansky
Aug 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Tyler Jameson Little" <beatgammit gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 09:03:34 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
 09-Aug-2013 04:53, Tyler Jameson Little пишет:
 According to the review queue, there there are 5 items that are
 currently ready for review. There was even a thread a while 
 back about
 starting another formal review, where both Jacob Carlborg and 
 Brian
 Schott said they're ready for review:
 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/gjonxudcdiwrlkgwwgbq forum.dlang.org 
 (it
 mostly digressed into bickering about the review process...).

Truth be told the wiki page is a bit misleading: std.compression.lz77 - might be ready for review (as in code) but needs to address fundamental design decisions and get the right interface for all streaming (de)compressors. std.idioms - a great idea but at the moment it hardly pulls its weight providing only a couple of helpers

Yeah, I saw that. I was actually part-way through implementing the DEFLATE algorithm when I realized the interface should probably be a community decision. Then I ran out of time...
I'm particularly
 interested in the outcome of the formal review of 
 std.serialize, because
 I'd like to see a decent replacement for std.json (I'd be 
 willing to
 contribute as well).

Then you would need to design a new std.json or land a hand in such a project. std.serialization should simply use it then as a backend not the other way around.

I'm willing to contribute code, but I feel any contribution would have to wait until std.serialization has gone through review. I'd ultimately prefer something simple like my PR: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/885, but I'm hesitant to add yet another item to the review queue, especially since std.serialization may obsolete my work.
 I havn't seen anything in this mailing list (except the above 
 and one by
 Walter Bright) for a while, and I haven't seen any pull 
 requests for any
 of the items in the review queue.

Well previously reviewed std.uni got pulled recently. Things are moving but slooowly.

Is this due to the review process review? Who do I bug to get things underway? I'd offer to act as review manager, but I don't feel I have enough clout in the community to do so.
Aug 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 06:41:21 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
 So please, if someone is willing to take std.serialize or even 
 another item from the review queue, do so. I will be happy to 
 assist, Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com It isn't very hard or even 
 that time consuming. (One of the reasons I've put off starting 
 std.serialize is because I want to dig in and provide a review 
 for the code and haven't become interested again since the 
 review process distraction)

I'll have a look at review process definition and summary of last review tomorrow. May initiate a new one if it will feel appropriate.
Aug 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Tyler Jameson Little" <beatgammit gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 14:03:56 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
 On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 06:41:21 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
 So please, if someone is willing to take std.serialize or even 
 another item from the review queue, do so. I will be happy to 
 assist, Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com It isn't very hard or 
 even that time consuming. (One of the reasons I've put off 
 starting std.serialize is because I want to dig in and provide 
 a review for the code and haven't become interested again 
 since the review process distraction)

I'll have a look at review process definition and summary of last review tomorrow. May initiate a new one if it will feel appropriate.

Awesome! Thanks for looking into this. Once std.serialize goes up for review, I'll be tracking the progress closely.
Aug 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 01:03:25PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
 09-Aug-2013 04:53, Tyler Jameson Little пишет:

I'm particularly interested in the outcome of the formal review of
std.serialize, because I'd like to see a decent replacement for
std.json (I'd be willing to contribute as well).

Then you would need to design a new std.json or land a hand in such a project.

I'd like to pitch in to a new std.json, if I can. [...]
I havn't seen anything in this mailing list (except the above and one
by Walter Bright) for a while, and I haven't seen any pull requests
for any of the items in the review queue.

Well previously reviewed std.uni got pulled recently. Things are moving but slooowly.

It was sitting on Phobos pull requests list, all green and good to go, but nobody paid any attention to it for weeks (if not months). I got fed up recently and decided to be the bad guy to prod some people to do something about it, and finally somebody saw fit to merge it. I think we need more people, and I mean a LOT more people, going through the Phobos pull requests list and reviewing the code. You don't have to be a committer to do it (I'm not); you just need to look over the code, comment on any issues you think might be relevant, or say "looks good to me". With 90+ requests in the queue and core devs who appear to be rather busy with other things, manpower is running low. It would help a LOT if more people chimed in and reviewed the pull requests so that the core devs don't feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of them. T -- Give me some fresh salted fish, please.
Aug 09 2013
prev sibling parent "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Friday, August 09, 2013 15:53:09 Tyler Jameson Little wrote:
 Is this due to the review process review? Who do I bug to get
 things underway? I'd offer to act as review manager, but I don't
 feel I have enough clout in the community to do so.

I suspect that almost no one has even looked at it. After some of us objected to the situation with the review for std.serialize with objects that we thought were quite obvious and Jesse didn't, he created a page on the wiki for the review process (or edited an existing one - I'm not sure which), and then asked for feedback. No one has given such feedback. Personally, I keep meaning to get around to looking at it but have been quite busy of late and have generally been failing to get around to a lot of stuff, including Jesse's wiki entry. No review has been happeing primarily because no one has been pushing for one. Someone who wants their code reviewed needs to be pushing for it and get someone to step as a review manager. Reviews don't just happen on their own, and there isn't really anyone managing the review queue. It's just a list of projects that at least at one point were possibly ready for review and which could be reviewed if the person who wrote it (or is now maintaining it) pushed for it - probably with precedence given to whoever was first in line if multiple people were pushing for review at once, but right now, no one is pushing to have their submission reviewed, so no review is happening. - Jonathan M Davis
Aug 09 2013