www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - review queue: next?

reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
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?
Sep 09 2013
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
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
Sep 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
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??
Sep 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
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
Sep 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Robert Schadek <realburner gmx.de> writes:
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.

Sep 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Brian Schott" <briancschott gmail.com> writes:
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.
Sep 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
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.


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 :)
Sep 10 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
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.
Sep 10 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Robert Schadek <realburner gmx.de> writes:
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 :)

the old discussion)
Sep 10 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
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 :)

distilled from the old discussion)

Thanks! You will be next after Brian then (pardon me for wanting std.d.lexer so much :P)
Sep 10 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Brian Schott" <briancschott gmail.com> writes:
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 :)

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.
Sep 10 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Robert Schadek <realburner gmx.de> writes:
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)

it review worthy.
Sep 11 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "ilya-stromberg" <ilya-stromberg-2009 yandex.ru> writes:
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/dcrbzbpjeijpzapvlsos 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?
Sep 11 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "ilya-stromberg" <ilya-stromberg-2009 yandex.ru> writes:
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)

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?
Sep 29 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
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.
Sep 29 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "ilya-stromberg" <ilya-stromberg-2009 yandex.ru> writes:
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?
Oct 02 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
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.
Oct 02 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jesse Phillips" <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:
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.
Oct 02 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "ilya-stromberg" <ilya-stromberg-2009 yandex.ru> writes:
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?
Oct 03 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
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.
Oct 03 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "ilya-stromberg" <ilya-stromberg-2009 yandex.ru> writes:
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?
Oct 03 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
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
Oct 03 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jesse Phillips" <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:
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.
Oct 03 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "ilya-stromberg" <ilya-stromberg-2009 yandex.ru> writes:
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/siwjrbtfoyyafyvzdoar 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.
Oct 13 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
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/siwjrbtfoyyafyvzdoar 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.
Oct 13 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Michael" <pr m1xa.com> writes:
+1 signal
Oct 13 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "ilya-stromberg" <ilya-stromberg-2009 yandex.ru> writes:
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/siwjrbtfoyyafyvzdoar 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?
Oct 29 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
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.
Oct 29 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Robert Schadek <realburner gmx.de> writes:
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.

multilogger.
Oct 29 2013
prev sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
Ok, I have made a short summary for std.logger 
http://forum.dlang.org/post/odehsxespizfyujbcmub forum.dlang.org

Robert, can please write me an e-mail so that we can proceed with 
signals?
Nov 04 2013