www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - std.log review extended until Feb 13

reply "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:
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 next Monday, 
Feb 13.

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.

David


[1] http://forum.dlang.org/thread/jhbbfd$1tmk$1 digitalmars.com
Mar 07 2012
next sibling parent reply Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM, David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> 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 several design questions, the review period has been extended
 until next Monday, Feb 13.

 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.

 David


 [1] http://forum.dlang.org/thread/**jhbbfd$1tmk$1 digitalmars.com<http://forum.dlang.org/thread/jhbbfd$1tmk$1 digitalmars.com>


March 13th :P

Regards,
Brad Anderson
Mar 07 2012
parent reply "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:
On Wednesday, 7 March 2012 at 21:47:56 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 March 13th :P


Oh, how embarrassing – must be the cold temperatures outside 
making me think we still have February… xD

David
Mar 07 2012
parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:55:48 -0500, David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at>=
  =

wrote:


 On Wednesday, 7 March 2012 at 21:47:56 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 March 13th :P


 Oh, how embarrassing =E2=80=93 must be the cold temperatures outside m=


aking me  =


 think we still have February=E2=80=A6 xD


It was 60 degrees in Massachusetts today... :)

Makes me think of golfing...

-Steve
Mar 07 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
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 reviewed for only two weeks 
before voting, but regardless, clearly std.log needs more review.

- Jonathan M Davis
Mar 07 2012
parent reply "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:
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 something between two and four weeks for all 
of the previous submissions.

We should also be careful not to spend too much time on 
bikeshedding, as there are other items waiting in the review 
queue as well, but I think at the current point, where several 
discussions are still going on, voting would make no sense. 
Hopefully, the situation will be clearer next week (even if the 
outcome of the vote might only be to reject/postpone inclusion of 
the library because of no consensus).

David
Mar 07 2012
parent "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
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.


 
 I had the four week for std.csv in mind when I wrote that, but
 yeah, I think it was something between two and four weeks for all
 of the previous submissions.
 
 We should also be careful not to spend too much time on
 bikeshedding, as there are other items waiting in the review
 queue as well, but I think at the current point, where several
 discussions are still going on, voting would make no sense.
 Hopefully, the situation will be clearer next week (even if the
 outcome of the vote might only be to reject/postpone inclusion of
 the library because of no consensus).


If it needs to go on longer than that, then it's either going to need to be 
rejected or reworked and reviewed again later. But there's no question that we 
don't have a consensus right now.

- Jonathan M Davis
Mar 07 2012