std.parallelism: Request for Review

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org)'s article
> On 3/4/11 5:32 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:23:43 +0000, dsimcha wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, so that's one issue to cross off the list.  To summarize the
> >> discussion so far, most of it's revolved around the issue of
> >> automatically determining how many CPUs are available and therefore how
> >> many threads the default pool should have. Previously, std.parallelism
> >> had been using core.cpuid for this task.  This module doesn't work yet
> >> on 64 bits and doesn't and isn't supposed to determine how many
> >> sockets/physical CPUs are available.  This was a point of
> >> miscommunication.
> >>
> >> std.parallelism now uses OS-specific APIs to determine the total number
> >> of cores available across all physical CPUs.  This appears to Just Work
> >> (TM) on 32-bit Windows, 32- and 64-bit Linux, and 32-bit Mac OS.
> >>
> >> We still need a volunteer to manage the review process.  As a reminder,
> >> for those of you who have been meaning to have a look but haven't, the
> >> Git repository is at:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/dsimcha/std.parallelism
> >>
> >> The pre-compiled documentation is at:
> >>
> >> http://cis.jhu.edu/~dsimcha/d/phobos/std_parallelism.html
> >
> > I'll volunteer as the review manager.
> >
> > Since the module has been through a few reviews already, both in this
> > group and on the Phobos mailing list, I don't think we need a lot more
> > time for that.  I suggest the following:
> >
> > - We give it one more week for the final review, starting today, 4 March.
> > - If this review does not lead to major API changes, we start the vote
> > next Friday, 11 March.  Vote closes after one week, 18 March.
> >
> > How does this sound?
> >
> > -Lars
> I suggest let's make the review three weeks and the vote one week.
> Andrei

This sounds reasonable.  Should I be doing anything besides following the thread
and reacting accordingly?