Apparently nothing's been getting reviewed for inclusion in Phobos lately, and the review queue has once again become fairly long according to the wiki (http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?ReviewQueue).  I also noticed that a new XML library is already in the review queue.

Is there some reason why none of this stuff is being reviewed?  If std.xml2 is really ready for review, we should review this ASAP since XML processing is fundamental functionality for a modern standard library in a high-level language.

IIRC the current std.xml's inadequacy was a major complaint that Jacob Carolberg, the author of std.serialize, had.  Perhaps when/if std.xml2 is accepted, he should modify std.serialize to use it, and std.serialize should be next in the queue.

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:51:56 -0700, dsimcha <dsimcha@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Apparently nothing's been getting reviewed for inclusion in Phobos lately, and the review queue has once again become fairly long according to the wiki (http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?ReviewQueue).  I also noticed that a new XML library is already in the review queue.
>
> Is there some reason why none of this stuff is being reviewed?  If std.xml2 is really ready for review, we should review this ASAP since XML processing is fundamental functionality for a modern standard library in a high-level language.
>
> IIRC the current std.xml's inadequacy was a major complaint that Jacob Carolberg, the author of std.serialize, had.  Perhaps when/if std.xml2 is accepted, he should modify std.serialize to use it, and std.serialize should be next in the queue.

Doesn't std.hash need to be reviewed?

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/

On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 00:51:57 UTC, dsimcha wrote:
> Is there some reason why none of this stuff is being reviewed?

Lack of people volunteering to manage a review.

David

On Sunday, July 29, 2012 02:54:29 David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 00:51:57 UTC, dsimcha wrote:
> > Is there some reason why none of this stuff is being reviewed?
> 
> Lack of people volunteering to manage a review.

That and a lack of people asking. Reviews seems to have happened when either the author puhes enough to get someone to volunteer or someone looking at the review queue and volunteering to review. But since it's rarely the case that we review something as soon as it's ready, it tends to sit there and get forgotten by the time that we actually finish whatever review is currently going on, and then nothing is review.d

- Jonathan M Davis

On Sunday, July 29, 2012 02:51:56 dsimcha wrote:
> Is there some reason why none of this stuff is being reviewed? If std.xml2 is really ready for review, we should review this ASAP since XML processing is fundamental functionality for a modern standard library in a high-level language.

AFAIK, the author of that module has never posted in the newsgroup looking for it to be reviewed. There have been some people have mentioned it, but the author hasn't pushed for it. I have no idea what state the module is in or whether it's suitable or not for Phobos, but either the author needs to push it through the review process, or someone else needs to effectively take it over and push it through the review process. Neither has happened. I suspect that it's listed in the wiki because someone liked the idea of it getting into Phobos and added it. But the author certainly hasn't been pushing for it to be reviewed. And without that, it's not going to go anywhere.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Saturday, July 28, 2012 17:53:21 Adam Wilson wrote:
> Doesn't std.hash need to be reviewed?

Yes, and quite recently, it's author was looking to get it reviewed, but I don't think that he's ever actually asked for someone to be in charge of the review, and no one has stepped up to do that. I kept intending to post about it to see if we could get someone to volunteer and get the ball rolling, but I've never gotten around to it.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 7/28/2012 5:51 PM, dsimcha wrote:
> Apparently nothing's been getting reviewed for inclusion in Phobos lately, and
> the review queue has once again become fairly long according to the wiki
> (http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?ReviewQueue).  I also noticed that a new XML
> library is already in the review queue.
>
> Is there some reason why none of this stuff is being reviewed? If std.xml2 is
> really ready for review, we should review this ASAP since XML processing is
> fundamental functionality for a modern standard library in a high-level language.
>
> IIRC the current std.xml's inadequacy was a major complaint that Jacob
> Carolberg, the author of std.serialize, had.  Perhaps when/if std.xml2 is
> accepted, he should modify std.serialize to use it, and std.serialize should be
> next in the queue.

I did a quick look at std.xml2, and noticed that it did not have a range interface. All Phobos modules that accept input data and write to output should use a range interface.

On 29-Jul-12 04:54, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 00:51:57 UTC, dsimcha wrote:
>> Is there some reason why none of this stuff is being reviewed?
>
> Lack of people volunteering to manage a review.
>
> David

I don't mind managing a couple more of reviews.
If no one objects :)

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

Am Sat, 28 Jul 2012 18:09:11 -0700
schrieb Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com>:

> On Saturday, July 28, 2012 17:53:21 Adam Wilson wrote:
> > Doesn't std.hash need to be reviewed?
> 
> Yes, and quite recently, it's author was looking to get it reviewed, but I don't think that he's ever actually asked for someone to be in charge of the review, and no one has stepped up to do that. I kept intending to post about it to see if we could get someone to volunteer and get the ball rolling, but I've never gotten around to it.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis

I asked ~ two weeks ago if any other project was ready for review as I didn't want to cut in line. As nothing else seemed ready for review I wanted to post a request asking for a review manager, but I've been busy since then.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned we could start the std.hash review as soon as a review manager has been found. Here's a short description:

----------------------
std.hash.hash is a new module for Phobos attempting to provide a uniform interface for hashes and checksums. It also provides some useful helper functions to deal with this new API.

The std.hash package also includes a md5 implementation deprecating
std.md5 (in std.hash.md, adapted from std.md5), a new SHA1
implementation by redstar (in std.hash.sha) and a CRC32 implementation
(in std.hash.crc) based on and deprecating the crc32 module that's
shipped with phobos but not documented.

It only covers hashes which can process data incrementally (in smaller buffers as opposed to all data at once).

Code:
https://github.com/jpf91/phobos/tree/newHash/std/hash
https://github.com/jpf91/phobos/compare/master...newHash

Docs: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24218791/d/phobos/std_hash_hash.html http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24218791/d/phobos/std_hash_md.html http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24218791/d/phobos/std_hash_sha.html http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24218791/d/phobos/std_hash_crc.html

On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 07:41:20 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> On 29-Jul-12 04:54, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 00:51:57 UTC, dsimcha wrote:
>>> Is there some reason why none of this stuff is being reviewed?
>>
>> Lack of people volunteering to manage a review.
>>
>> David
>
> I don't mind managing a couple more of reviews.
> If no one objects :)

I tried to establish a Trello card people can add themselves to if they are potentially available as a review manager (so that authors know whom to contact), but the idea never really took off:

https://trello.com/card/review-manager-pool/4f33d3c6542c156960533efb/4

David