View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
March 07, 2012
std.log review extended until Feb 13
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
March 07, 2012
Re: std.log review extended until Feb 13
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
March 07, 2012
Re: std.log review extended until Feb 13
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
March 07, 2012
std.log review extended until March 13th
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
March 07, 2012
Re: std.log review extended until Feb 13
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
March 07, 2012
Re: std.log review extended until March 13th
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
March 07, 2012
Re: std.log review extended until Feb 13
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
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home