• Jonathan M Davis (17/17) Oct 02 2011 The review for the region allocator has completed, so we need to choos
• Andrei Alexandrescu (6/21) Oct 03 2011 Following feedback I received for std.benchmark I'd like to take a
• Jesse Phillips (2/24) Oct 03 2011 While I would love to have mine reviewed, I agree with your selection of...
• Dmitry Olshansky (6/30) Oct 03 2011 Same thoughts here. As for std.regex being high priority, well, others
• simendsjo (3/42) Oct 03 2011 Isn't there more in the queue? std.process and std.socket rewrite?
• Jonathan M Davis (19/21) Oct 03 2011 IIUC, the new std.process requires a fix to dmc's C runtime on Windows, ...
• Jesse Phillips (5/14) Oct 03 2011 In fact, I'm thinking that these threads should come up periodically but...

Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

The review for the region allocator has completed, so we need to choos 
something else to review now. I believe that the current items in the review 
queue which are ready for review are

- std.log
- a CSV parsing module by Jesse Phillips
- std.benchmark
- GSoC changes to std.regex

There are a couple of other items which are in a "pre-review" state (e.g. 
orange) as well as a few others that are supposed to be close to being ready 
for review (e.g. changes to std.variant), but I'm not aware of anything else 
which is actually ready for review at the moment. So, if I missed something, 
please bring it up.

The item which has been in the queue the longest is std.log, but given that 
std.benchmark could affect further reviews, we may want to review that first. 
The GSoC changes to to std.regex are also probably of fairly high priority.

Any thoughts on which item should be reviewed first?

- Jonathan M Davis

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

On 10/3/11 1:27 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 The review for the region allocator has completed, so we need to choos
 something else to review now. I believe that the current items in the review
 queue which are ready for review are

 - std.log
 - a CSV parsing module by Jesse Phillips
 - std.benchmark
 - GSoC changes to std.regex

 There are a couple of other items which are in a "pre-review" state (e.g.
 orange) as well as a few others that are supposed to be close to being ready
 for review (e.g. changes to std.variant), but I'm not aware of anything else
 which is actually ready for review at the moment. So, if I missed something,
 please bring it up.

 The item which has been in the queue the longest is std.log, but given that
 std.benchmark could affect further reviews, we may want to review that first.
 The GSoC changes to to std.regex are also probably of fairly high priority.

Following feedback I received for std.benchmark I'd like to take a 
little more time to improve it. Should be ready for formal review next 
Monday.

Thanks,

Andrei

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> writes:

Jonathan M Davis Wrote:

 The review for the region allocator has completed, so we need to choos 
 something else to review now. I believe that the current items in the review 
 queue which are ready for review are
 
 - std.log
 - a CSV parsing module by Jesse Phillips
 - std.benchmark
 - GSoC changes to std.regex
 
 There are a couple of other items which are in a "pre-review" state (e.g. 
 orange) as well as a few others that are supposed to be close to being ready 
 for review (e.g. changes to std.variant), but I'm not aware of anything else 
 which is actually ready for review at the moment. So, if I missed something, 
 please bring it up.
 
 The item which has been in the queue the longest is std.log, but given that 
 std.benchmark could affect further reviews, we may want to review that first. 
 The GSoC changes to to std.regex are also probably of fairly high priority.
 
 Any thoughts on which item should be reviewed first?
 
 - Jonathan M Davis

While I would love to have mine reviewed, I agree with your selection of
priority.

Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:

On 03.10.2011 21:01, Jesse Phillips wrote:
 Jonathan M Davis Wrote:

 The review for the region allocator has completed, so we need to choos
 something else to review now. I believe that the current items in the review
 queue which are ready for review are

 - std.log
 - a CSV parsing module by Jesse Phillips
 - std.benchmark
 - GSoC changes to std.regex

 There are a couple of other items which are in a "pre-review" state (e.g.
 orange) as well as a few others that are supposed to be close to being ready
 for review (e.g. changes to std.variant), but I'm not aware of anything else
 which is actually ready for review at the moment. So, if I missed something,
 please bring it up.

 The item which has been in the queue the longest is std.log, but given that
 std.benchmark could affect further reviews, we may want to review that first.
 The GSoC changes to to std.regex are also probably of fairly high priority.

 Any thoughts on which item should be reviewed first?

 - Jonathan M Davis

 While I would love to have mine reviewed, I agree with your selection of
priority.

Same thoughts here. As for std.regex being high priority, well, others 
have being waiting for quite some time so let's respect order unless 
someone wants to skip a round.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

simendsjo <simendsjo gmail.com> writes:

On 03.10.2011 22:14, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
 On 03.10.2011 21:01, Jesse Phillips wrote:
 Jonathan M Davis Wrote:

 The review for the region allocator has completed, so we need to choos
 something else to review now. I believe that the current items in the
 review
 queue which are ready for review are

 - std.log
 - a CSV parsing module by Jesse Phillips
 - std.benchmark
 - GSoC changes to std.regex

 There are a couple of other items which are in a "pre-review" state
 (e.g.
 orange) as well as a few others that are supposed to be close to
 being ready
 for review (e.g. changes to std.variant), but I'm not aware of
 anything else
 which is actually ready for review at the moment. So, if I missed
 something,
 please bring it up.

 The item which has been in the queue the longest is std.log, but
 given that
 std.benchmark could affect further reviews, we may want to review
 that first.
 The GSoC changes to to std.regex are also probably of fairly high
 priority.

 Any thoughts on which item should be reviewed first?

 - Jonathan M Davis

 While I would love to have mine reviewed, I agree with your selection
 of priority.

 Same thoughts here. As for std.regex being high priority, well, others
 have being waiting for quite some time so let's respect order unless
 someone wants to skip a round.

Isn't there more in the queue? std.process and std.socket rewrite? 
Couldn't find a list in the wiki though.

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Monday, October 03, 2011 13:30 simendsjo wrote:
 Isn't there more in the queue? std.process and std.socket rewrite?


IIUC, the new std.process requires a fix to dmc's C runtime on Windows, so 
until that's sorted out, the new std.process is not ready for review.

As for std.socket, https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/260 
does do a fair bit of work on it, but as I understand it, it doesn't change 
enough of the API to merit a formal review (I haven't looked over that 
particular pull request in detail though - just prior versions of it - so I'm 
not all that clear on its current state). And I'm not aware of any major 
redesigns of std.socket being in the works - though there has been some 
discussion of possibly redesigning its current API. Regardless, no major 
revisions to std.socket have been submitted as ready for the review queue.

 Couldn't find a list in the wiki though.

There isn't a formal list for the review queue anywhere. It's managed entirely 
by posts in the newsgroup. It's being managed fairly informally at this point, 
since we don't always review the item that's been in the queue the longest 
(depending on the current circumstances), and unless the person who's 
submitting a module for review is active on the newsgroup and ready to be 
active in the review of their code, there's no point in reviewing their code 
anyway. And as long as that works, we're going to continue to do it that way.

- Jonathan M Davis

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> writes:

Jonathan M Davis Wrote:

 There isn't a formal list for the review queue anywhere. It's managed entirely 
 by posts in the newsgroup. It's being managed fairly informally at this point, 
 since we don't always review the item that's been in the queue the longest 
 (depending on the current circumstances), and unless the person who's 
 submitting a module for review is active on the newsgroup and ready to be 
 active in the review of their code, there's no point in reviewing their code 
 anyway. And as long as that works, we're going to continue to do it that way.
 
 - Jonathan M Davis

In fact, I'm thinking that these threads should come up periodically but not
include a list. Instead just ask what is ready for review. The reason are two
fold.

1. As you say the author must be active, and while they may usually be active
you want them active now.

2. It forces the author to speak to their being active/not on vacation. I
wasn't sure if it made sense to reply, but it does.

I suppose it could be a little discouraging, "they keep forgetting about me!
I've been ready the last 3..." kind of response. But I don't think anyone here
would take it that way, and considering the Boost review criteria, once the
code is in it is it is "your" responsibility including passing the baton. So
sticking around for review isn't any different from having it in.