Re: [9fans] Go/Inferno toolchain (Was: comment and newline in

["Devon H. O'Dell" <devon.odell@gmail.com>]

2010/6/29 Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:26 AM,  <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:
>>>> but I can dig
>>>> them up, clean them up, and share them,
>>>
>>> My particular concern is to encourage convergence towards a single
>>> source distribution rather than divergence as seems to have been the
>>> case so far with Plan 9 native, Inferno, p9p and now Go. What I have
>>> chosen to do, ill-advised as it may be, is to set up a mercurial
>>> repository to re-distribute hacked Go sources that mostly contain
>>> harmless changes that make it possible to compile the Go sources and
>>> specifically the development toolchain with the Plan 9 toolchain.  I'm
>>> presently trying to bring the work I did last year into this
>>> repository and at the same time keep track of the Go release.
>>>
>>
>> I've had a composite repo of previous attempts (well, Sape's previous
>> attempt) at doing this (for some time) at:
>> http://code.google.com/p/go-plan9/
>>
>> I'm happy to add anyone to the committer/admin list, although my
>> preference is to keep the main branch in sync with go and have folks
>> attempts at conversion in sub-branches.  You are of course welcome to
>> maintain your own repo with your own effort, I just figured if
>> everyone had a common place to see what approaches people were using
>> we might get there faster....
>>
>>       -eric
>
> Is the porting process active?

I haven't had time, but have made promises. I'll start tonight.

--dho

> -rob
>
>