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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Makes me think of golfing...

-Steve

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