www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - review queue status

reply Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
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
Jul 16 2012
next sibling parent "Adam Wilson" <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:06:02 -0700, Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com>  
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 std.hash, to useful to let sit idle. -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender Project Coordinator The Horizon Project http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
Jul 16 2012
prev sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:06:02 +0200
Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> 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

Isn't the new std.process ready?
Jul 16 2012
next sibling parent "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Monday, July 16, 2012 14:58:27 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:06:02 +0200
 
 Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> 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

Isn't the new std.process ready?

I don't know. I believe that the issue with dmc's runtime was fixed, but Lars and Steven need to be available for that (since they wrote it), and I don't know if they are. Regardless, we _do_ need to look at the full set of modules which supposedly were looking to be reviewed and determine whether any of those already in the queue are ready and how they fit in priority wise in comparison to std.hash (and whether the people working on them are currently available) before jumping in on a review of std.hash. However, given the lack of push for other reviews, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we end up going with std.hash next. - Jonathan M Davis
Jul 16 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent captaindet <2krnk gmx.net> writes:
On 2012-07-16 13:58, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:06:02 +0200
 Johannes Pfau<nospam example.com>  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

Isn't the new std.process ready?

i'd like to see std.process making it, too.
Jul 16 2012
prev sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:58:27 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:06:02 +0200
 Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> 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

Isn't the new std.process ready?

No. Blame me. I need to scrape more free time together. -Steve
Jul 16 2012