• Johannes Pfau (4/4) Jul 16 2012 Is anything in the review queue
• Adam Wilson (9/13) Jul 16 2012 I vote for std.hash, to useful to let sit idle.
• Nick Sabalausky (3/9) Jul 16 2012 Isn't the new std.process ready?
• Jonathan M Davis (11/22) Jul 16 2012 I don't know. I believe that the issue with dmc's runtime was fixed, but...
• captaindet (2/11) Jul 16 2012 i'd like to see std.process making it, too.
• Steven Schveighoffer (5/14) Jul 16 2012 No. Blame me.

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

"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/

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?

"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

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.

"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