July 16, 2012
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
July 16, 2012
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/
July 16, 2012
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?
July 16, 2012
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
July 16, 2012
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.
July 16, 2012
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
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home