www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Review Queue: Should We Start Reviews Again?

reply "dsimcha" <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
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.
Jul 28 2012
next sibling parent reply "Adam Wilson" <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
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/
Jul 28 2012
parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
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
Jul 28 2012
parent Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
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
Jul 29 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:
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
Jul 28 2012
next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
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
Jul 28 2012
prev sibling parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
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
Jul 29 2012
parent reply "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:
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
Jul 29 2012
parent Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On 29-Jul-12 14:34, David Nadlinger wrote:

 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


Probably because I had to spend around half an hour to get to that page 
on my own. Me thinks Trello would take off iff it was used proactively, 
featured on dlang.org, had read/write access for most folks (say the 
ones with GitHub account) etc.

Would be great if it had some important locked notes and others would be 
public writable.

As it stands it's half-assed wiki for 3 persons that can do just fine 
without it.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
Jul 29 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
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
Jul 28 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
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.
Jul 28 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-07-29 02:51, dsimcha wrote:


 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.


The review of std.serialize (Orange) really shouldn't depend on the XML 
implementation it uses. I think that is just an implementation detail.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 29 2012
prev sibling parent "Jesse Phillips" <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 00:51:57 UTC, dsimcha wrote:


 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.


I believe Michael put it "Ready for comments" as he is interested 
in getting feedback to his work, not really ready for review. I 
don't see Michael around the forums here much/at all, but have 
contacted him via email on a number of occasions.

I don't believe the library is ready for review:

1. Documentation, very minimal and not on par with the standards 
displayed in Phobos

2. There are a number of ways to parse XML and the method I've 
been using has been getting heavily modified almost every time I 
bring up an issue/request clarification.

So I highly suggest those interested in a D XML parser to try it 
out and send feedback, or request that he pester more people to 
critique it.

https://launchpad.net/~michael-rynn-500

I don't really know what I want (how it should fit into the D2 
style). I pretty much just want to read some XML and be done with 
it (actually I don't really want to do that either). As I've been 
using this for some time I'm not in as much of a hurry as others 
to get it into Phobos.
Jul 29 2012