From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <9a8dd7601991c7c1a83bfad2a98fc2b0@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Wed,  4 Dec 2013 17:11:43 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <01534B2A-5537-4A2D-A5F0-195DB76EBD9F@corpus-callosum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] Go port [was Re: Go and 21-bit runes (and a bit of Go
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 92d70546-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Codereview has it=E2=80=99s issues.

It's normal to find fault when things aren't as convenient as one
wishes, but in this case I doubt that we could replace codereview and,
most importantly, the reviewers, with something better.

If there is a better option, I'll be happy to go along with it, I'm
not an intentional reactionary.  But I also don't want to lose sight
of the fact that to me its "Go release" on multiple "Plan 9 platforms"
that I find appealing.  There are far more competent people out there
to deal with all the other options - although netbsd/386 is also of
active interest to me - and I'd rather help where I am able to
contribute what little skills I have.

As for highlighting the Plan 9 issues specifically, I had a brief
conversation, I think it was with Andrew Gerrand, where the conclusion
was that we - the Plan 9 community - were most welcome to use the
issue tracker for Plan 9 issues and it was more or less up to us to
make sure that the issues were labelled correctly.  I'm not familiar
with the issue tracker's innards, but I can investigate this further
if we think it would be the right path to follow.  I do hope it is.

++L