DIP11: Automatic downloading of libraries

[Jonathan M Davis]

On 2011-06-21 07:17, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/21/11 9:14 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:21:57 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> On 6/21/11 1:58 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:32:32 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>>> On 6/20/11 4:28 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> >>>>> BTW has std.benchmark gone through the regular review process?
> >>>> 
> >>>> I was sure someone will ask that at some point :o). The planned change
> >>>> was to add a couple of functions, but then it got separated into its
> >>>> own module. If several people think it's worth putting std.benchmark
> >>>> through the review queue, let's do so. I'm sure the quality of the
> >>>> module will be gained.
> >>> 
> >>> I think we should.  Also, now that TempAlloc isn't up for review
> >>> anymore, and both std.log and std.path have to be postponed a few
> >>> weeks, the queue is open. :)
> >>> 
> >>> -Lars
> >> 
> >> Perfect. Anyone would want to be the review manager? Lars? :o)
> > 
> > I would, but in two weeks I am going away on vacation, and that will be
> > in the middle of the review process.  Any other volunteers?
> > 
> > -Lars
> 
> BTW if libcurl is ready for review that should be the more urgent item.

It looks like libcurl needs more bake time first, so if we're going to review 
std.benchmark, it can go first. Since, no one else has stepped forward to do 
it, I can be the review manager. Given the relative simplicity of 
std.benchmark and the fact that something like half of it was in std.datetime 
to begin with, do you think that reviewing until July 1st (a little over a 
week) would be enough before voting on it, or do you think that it should go 
longer? We can always extend the time if it turns out that it needs a longer 
period than that, but if you think that it's likely to need more review and 
update, then we might as well select a longer time to begin with.

- Jonathan M Davis