The new std.process by Lars Kyllingstad and Steven Schveighoffer has been accepted with a final count

18/0

On a related note, the voting broke of into several discussions related to how to bring proposed libraries into Phobos. Specifically the issue being that a Phobos module frozen to prevent breaking changes yet these are new modules not getting the most thorough testing before inclusion.

Several suggested solutions to this were made; exp/std.exp, warning the module is exp when importing, and a combination of both (place the module in exp without a warning, also place in std publicly importing and placing a warning).

I'm not here to change how things are done. It didn't seem there was a consensus, but the hybrid seemed to be fairly appealing.

For now I say we continue as before, and work toward this new approach.

Voting thread: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mgstnugckomjpvdgpudz@forum.dlang.org

On Saturday, 20 April 2013 at 15:55:30 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:

> For now I say we continue as before, and work toward this new approach.

Being relatively new to this community, what is the status quo for including new modules / rewrites of old modules? At some point in the next few days will std.process just become the new version?

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 13:23:21 +0200
"John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> wrote:
> At some point in the next few days will std.process just become the new version?

In Git master, yes. And then it'll be part of the next official DMD release (2.063) whenever that comes out.

On Sunday, 21 April 2013 at 18:55:06 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 13:23:21 +0200
> "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> At some point in the next few days will std.process just become the new version?
>
> In Git master, yes. And then it'll be part of the next official DMD
> release (2.063) whenever that comes out.

Thanks, good to know.