Ready for review of Formal Review

Timothee Cour thelastmammoth at gmail.com
Tue Jun 18 10:18:53 PDT 2013


Just a concern regarding requirement for portability:
we should strive for portability whenever possible, but this shouldn't
hinder useful library code that works only on a subset of platforms (eg
support for other platforms could come later if at all).

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Jesse Phillips <
Jesse.K.Phillips+D at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> I have been working on the Review Process documentation and believe it
> should go through a review similar to the process for which it describes.
> This would mean a review manager and voting. After that it is up to the
> review manager to decide how to run the review.
>
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/**Process<http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/Process>
>
> All details are up for discussion, I have placed "Approval Wanted" in
> places likely to be controversial so those are good places to jump to if
> short on time.
>
> I have taken the Boost process[1] and consolidated it to the points we
> currently use and probably should use, while leaving out items that at this
> time have not been used and would likely not lead to better results.
>
> Would anyone be willing to be a review manager?
>
> Should this be placed in the review queue? :)
>
> 1. http://www.boost.org/**community/reviews.html<http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20130618/2c6c2c2e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list