Anything up for formal review?

[Jesse Phillips]

On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 00:53:18 UTC, Tyler Jameson Little 
wrote:
> I havn't seen anything in this mailing list (except the above 
> and one by Walter Bright) for a while, and I haven't seen any 
> pull requests for any of the items in the review queue.

I haven't come back to std.serialize since the reformed review 
process has been established. I was hoping someone would be 
willing to run a Formal Review on the review process so that any 
ambiguity or disagreements could be worked out. Instead I went 
and played around a bit:

https://github.com/opticron/ProtocolBuffer
http://he-the-great.livejournal.com/46498.html

I'm by no means the only authority in starting a review (there is 
no review wizard). Just need an active member to take up the 
task, where active is not specifically defined.

As for the current state of std.serialization. Jacob has the docs 
sorted out with the exception of no sidebar entry:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18386187/docs/std.serialization/index.html

I wanted to look over the code with an eye for the new review 
requirements, and also running -cov against the unittests (Jacob 
reported 88% where I think 80% is library acceptable)

So please, if someone is willing to take std.serialize or even 
another item from the review queue, do so. I will be happy to 
assist, Jesse.K.Phillips+D at gmail.com It isn't very hard or even 
that time consuming. (One of the reasons I've put off starting 
std.serialize is because I want to dig in and provide a review 
for the code and haven't become interested again since the review 
process distraction)

---------------

On a related note, I don't think std.serialize is a replacement 
for std.json, instead std.serialize would be built on std.json 
like it is for std.xml (at this time json is not available 
output).