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 < [email protected]> 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> >
