On Wednesday, 7 March 2012 at 21:51:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Actually, I think that most proposals have been reviewed for
only two weeks
before voting, but regardless, clearly std.log needs more
review.
I had the four week for std.csv in mind when I wrote that, but
yeah, I think it was something between two and four weeks for all
of the previous submissions.
We should also be careful not to spend too much time on
bikeshedding, as there are other items waiting in the review
queue as well, but I think at the current point, where several
discussions are still going on, voting would make no sense.
Hopefully, the situation will be clearer next week (even if the
outcome of the vote might only be to reject/postpone inclusion of
the library because of no consensus).
David
