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 :)
>> 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)

https://github.com/Hackerpilot/phobos/tree/master/std/d

I'll work on increasing the test coverage later this evening.

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)
No problem, it might be good though to get so bashing beforehand to make it review worthy.

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?

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)
> No problem, it might be good though to get so bashing 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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.