On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 14:23:42 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> 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.

OK, I see.
How many conditions I can add? Only one, a few related (for example, documentation issues), or unlimited?

On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 14:43:55 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote:
> OK, I see.
> How many conditions I can add? Only one, a few related (for example, documentation issues), or unlimited?

One very specific issue at most. Everything else should go as "No".

http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/Process#Voting

On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 14:43:55 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 14:23:42 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> 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.
>
> OK, I see.
> How many conditions I can add? Only one, a few related (for example, documentation issues), or unlimited?

The goal is to make it as quick as possible to get the submission into Phobos. If there is one item which you consider strong about should prevent the inclusion then it allows the Review Manager to switch your vote to a yes when that is resolved. But it also has the benefit that the maintainer could put it at the top of his list of improvements even if it is accepted.

If you have more than one, tracking the state of the vote is too challenging. Similarly if it is not specific than there is no way for a Review Manager can't judge when it matches your opinion.

You could say something like "Yes if Documentation is improved by, changing ___ and ___. This is a blocker."

Note you could list hundreds of conditions, but the Review Manager can choose to (and recommended to) just take that as No and the maintainer would have no obligation to response.

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.

Dicebot, Robert Klotzner would like to start review of the `std.signal` module:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/siwjrbtfoyyafyvzdoar@forum.dlang.org

If you are agree to be a review manager for this module, we can start the formal review after the Robert Schadek's std.logger.

On Sunday, 13 October 2013 at 12:12:08 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote:
> Dicebot, Robert Klotzner would like to start review of the `std.signal` module:
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/siwjrbtfoyyafyvzdoar@forum.dlang.org
>
> If you are agree to be a review manager for this module, we can start the formal review after the Robert Schadek's std.logger.

Sure, assuming `std.serialization` won't be ready for another round of review by that time.

+1 signal

On Sunday, 13 October 2013 at 13:12:35 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Sunday, 13 October 2013 at 12:12:08 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote:
>> Dicebot, Robert Klotzner would like to start review of the `std.signal` module:
>> http://forum.dlang.org/post/siwjrbtfoyyafyvzdoar@forum.dlang.org
>>
>> If you are agree to be a review manager for this module, we can start the formal review after the Robert Schadek's std.logger.
>
> Sure, assuming `std.serialization` won't be ready for another round of review by that time.

It looks like we finished std.logger review.
Is it time to make some conclusion?

On Tuesday, 29 October 2013 at 07:30:41 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote:
> It looks like we finished std.logger review.
> Is it time to make some conclusion?

Sorry, having lot of distraction lately. I am hoping to make a summary for std.logger and proceed with the queue within a week or two.

On 10/29/2013 11:02 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 October 2013 at 07:30:41 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote:
>> It looks like we finished std.logger review.
>> Is it time to make some conclusion?
>
> Sorry, having lot of distraction lately. I am hoping to make a summary for std.logger and proceed with the queue within a week or two.
Sounds good, as I need at least one evening to finish the doc for multilogger.

Ok, I have made a short summary for std.logger http://forum.dlang.org/post/odehsxespizfyujbcmub@forum.dlang.org

Robert, can please write me an e-mail so that we can proceed with signals?