On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 18:40:57 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I decided to take a stab at reviving the new std.process written by Lars T. Kyllingstad and Steven Schveighoffer.
>
> The result is here: https://github.com/alexrp/phobos/tree/new-std-process-update
>
> I decided to extract the work into new commits because rebasing the old branch in Lars's repo was way too cumbersome after so many months (and that branch also had a lot of merge commits). The code is obviously not written by me; all I did was a couple of build and test fixes.
>
> It currently works on 32-bit and 64-bit Linux. It would be great if someone could take it for a spin on OS X, FreeBSD, and Windows to see how it fares there (I'm particularly worried that I may have broken the Windows build).
>
> Lars or Steven, would either of you be willing to go through the review process with this module? I sent the druntime changes upstream a while back, so the Phobos changes are really all that remain in order to have it included.

Great!  Steve and I never got around to doing this, and I haven't
had the time to do much Phobos development for the past year.  I
would be very happy to see this code finally make it into Phobos
-- it is long overdue!

Unfortunately, in the immediate future, I don't think I can
guarantee the degree of availability that is expected in a review
process.  After all, the reviewee(?) should be available for
questions and criticism, and for implementing the changes agreed
upon.  But perhaps Steve and I could do the review together, and
thus share the burden?  I haven't visited the forums in a while,
is Steve still around?

While I remember: std.process.environment was accepted into
Phobos a long time ago.  I'm pretty sure it has received some
updates in Phobos master since then, but I can't remember whether
I backported those to my repo.  You should probably compare them
and see.

Another thing:  Proper unittests for all functionality in this
module would be great.  If anyone has a good idea as to which
processes can be run in a unittest, both safely and with a
predictable outcome, on each platform, please speak up.

Lars

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:45:31 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad <public@kyllingen.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 18:40:57 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I decided to take a stab at reviving the new std.process written by Lars T. Kyllingstad and Steven Schveighoffer.
>>
>> The result is here: https://github.com/alexrp/phobos/tree/new-std-process-update
>>
>> I decided to extract the work into new commits because rebasing the old branch in Lars's repo was way too cumbersome after so many months (and that branch also had a lot of merge commits). The code is obviously not written by me; all I did was a couple of build and test fixes.
>>
>> It currently works on 32-bit and 64-bit Linux. It would be great if someone could take it for a spin on OS X, FreeBSD, and Windows to see how it fares there (I'm particularly worried that I may have broken the Windows build).
>>
>> Lars or Steven, would either of you be willing to go through the review process with this module? I sent the druntime changes upstream a while back, so the Phobos changes are really all that remain in order to have it included.
>
> Great!  Steve and I never got around to doing this, and I haven't
> had the time to do much Phobos development for the past year.  I
> would be very happy to see this code finally make it into Phobos
> -- it is long overdue!
>
> Unfortunately, in the immediate future, I don't think I can
> guarantee the degree of availability that is expected in a review
> process.  After all, the reviewee(?) should be available for
> questions and criticism, and for implementing the changes agreed
> upon.  But perhaps Steve and I could do the review together, and
> thus share the burden?  I haven't visited the forums in a while,
> is Steve still around?
>
> While I remember: std.process.environment was accepted into
> Phobos a long time ago.  I'm pretty sure it has received some
> updates in Phobos master since then, but I can't remember whether
> I backported those to my repo.  You should probably compare them
> and see.
>
> Another thing:  Proper unittests for all functionality in this
> module would be great.  If anyone has a good idea as to which
> processes can be run in a unittest, both safely and with a
> predictable outcome, on each platform, please speak up.

Hi Alex,

I too have been very uninvolved with D for the past few months (not by choice).  I'm glad someone is picking this up again, and I will try to offer as much help as I can.  I unfortunately have been extremely busy with iOS development and objective C.  I'd love to get back into working on D, but I just can't right now.

I have not been keeping up with the forums or with the mailing lists, Lars emailed me about your efforts.  The only thing I recall about the Windows stuff that was not complete was that I was not setting some of the pipe handles to close when the new process is created (someone had pointed that out, I can't remember who).

If I get some time, I will test your branch on my Windows system and review the code.

-Steve