From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@9fans.net Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:20:16 +0200 From: lucio@proxima.alt.za In-Reply-To: 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: 92bbe9f0-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > The Go =E2=80=98builder=E2=80=99 for Plan 9 386 is on the chopping bloc= k: >=20 > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-dev/QW4zUbMHMBM > https://code.google.com/p/go-wiki/wiki/PortingPolicy Maybe I am misunderstanding, or maybe our perspectives are irreconcilably different. As I see it, if we cannot comply with the need of the Go developers to have sustained maintenance of the Plan 9 port of Go so that they need not provide this maintenance themselves, then the Plan 9 port will no longer be supported, meaning that the Go developers are under no obligation to correct any errors that may affect (exclusively) the port to Plan 9 that may be caused by development in their other territory. It also means that the Plan 9 port will be decoupled from the codereview system and in effect will be left to bitrot wherever it will be maintained when that happens. I consider that a disaster, others may think otherwise. ++L