New std.process revival

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 18:40:57 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I decided to take a stab at reviving the new std.process 
> written by Lars T. Kyllingstad and Steven Schveighoffer.
>
> The result is here: 
> https://github.com/alexrp/phobos/tree/new-std-process-update
>
> I decided to extract the work into new commits because rebasing 
> the old branch in Lars's repo was way too cumbersome after so 
> many months (and that branch also had a lot of merge commits). 
> The code is obviously not written by me; all I did was a couple 
> of build and test fixes.
>
> It currently works on 32-bit and 64-bit Linux. It would be 
> great if someone could take it for a spin on OS X, FreeBSD, and 
> Windows to see how it fares there (I'm particularly worried 
> that I may have broken the Windows build).
>
> Lars or Steven, would either of you be willing to go through 
> the review process with this module? I sent the druntime 
> changes upstream a while back, so the Phobos changes are really 
> all that remain in order to have it included.

Great!  Steve and I never got around to doing this, and I haven't
had the time to do much Phobos development for the past year.  I
would be very happy to see this code finally make it into Phobos
-- it is long overdue!

Unfortunately, in the immediate future, I don't think I can
guarantee the degree of availability that is expected in a review
process.  After all, the reviewee(?) should be available for
questions and criticism, and for implementing the changes agreed
upon.  But perhaps Steve and I could do the review together, and
thus share the burden?  I haven't visited the forums in a while,
is Steve still around?

While I remember: std.process.environment was accepted into
Phobos a long time ago.  I'm pretty sure it has received some
updates in Phobos master since then, but I can't remember whether
I backported those to my repo.  You should probably compare them
and see.

Another thing:  Proper unittests for all functionality in this
module would be great.  If anyone has a good idea as to which
processes can be run in a unittest, both safely and with a
predictable outcome, on each platform, please speak up.

Lars