Just to expand on Russ' point about golang-tools:
> In fact there is now a roughly biweekly “Go tools” meeting which is
> typically attended by more tool and editor integration authors from outside
> Google than from inside Google and organized by a contributor outside
> Google. (If you want
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:11 PM Sam Whited wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019, at 17:59, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > But (and here you'll just have to trust me) those executives, and
> > upper management in general, have never made any attempt to affect how
> > the Go language and tools and
On Thu, May 23, 2019, at 17:59, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> But (and here you'll just have to trust me) those executives, and
> upper management in general, have never made any attempt to affect how
> the Go language and tools and standard library are developed. Of
> course, there's no reason for
Russ,
I'm happy you updated the public docs on the proposal review process. It is
much more clear now. Thanks.
Thanks for publicly listing the people on the review process. It helps
people have insights. And, thanks for listing Peter who is not on that
GitHub team. He's a Googler I didn't
Hi all,
I spent a while trying to work out what I want to say about the general
theme of Go and open source, but in the end I realized that my talk at
Gophercon 2015 is a better articulation of what open source means for Go,
and what Google's role is, than any email I can write in a few hours
Thanks for the details, Russ.
On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 11:53:09 AM UTC-4, Russ Cox wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 7:08 PM Matt Farina > wrote:
>
>> 1) when a company runs a project without much publicly documented process
>> but does as they choose, isn't that a sign of a company run
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 7:08 PM Matt Farina wrote:
> 1) when a company runs a project without much publicly documented process
> but does as they choose, isn't that a sign of a company run project?
> 2) The go team at Google has had processes that are not public. One
> example is the proposal
> Ian mentioned that "Google" as a company doesn't actually choose to do a
> lot. The Go team is largely autonomous in their decision making and isn't
> being influenced by executives.
> So, to put it another way: If the only role the company plays is to
> provide paychecks to some Go
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:08 AM Matt Farina wrote:
> Three things I've considered:
>
> 1) when a company runs a project without much publicly documented process
> but does as they choose, isn't that a sign of a company run project?
>
Ian mentioned that "Google" as a company doesn't actually
>
>
>> I'm not sure whether I agree with this characterization. There is, AFAIK,
> approximately no codified process in the Go project that would single out
> Google or Google Employees. To a degree, that's because there aren't that
> many codified processes and the ones there are, are kept a bit
On Mon, 27 May 2019 12:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Liam wrote:
Rust was irreparably damaged by delivering custom painted ponies to the
most vocal and enough stubborn "representatives of the whole community".
I personally wishes Go team will guard the future of Go free from such fate,
as they did for past
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 9:16 PM Matt Farina wrote:
> This whole conversation illustrates the difference between open source and
> open governance. Go is open source but the governance is controlled by
> Google. This compares to something like Kubernetes that is both open source
> and open
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 1:35 AM Axel Wagner
wrote:
>
> This is a bit of an aside, I agree with everything Ian said, but:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:59 PM Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> If a language is to change over time, this specification or
>> implementation must change. Somebody has to
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:50 PM wrote:
>
> Ian: I find many of your comments related to how the Go team functions very
> interesting,
> I for one would find it helpful if 2 or 3 times a year the Go Team would
> communicate to the Go community at large, information related to where and
> in
I filed an issue requesting that the Go team issue RFPs to both communicate
directions they plan to go in, and solicit community input about them. It
was declined.
proposal: Go 2: establish RFP/RFC process for language feature proposals
https://github.com/golang/go/issues/29860
Part of my
This whole conversation illustrates the difference between open source and open
governance. Go is open source but the governance is controlled by Google. This
compares to something like Kubernetes that is both open source and open
governance.
Should Go be open governance? It sounds like this
The actual organizational structure of Debian is pretty complex. You can
think of Debian Developers (DD) as "people who can submit to Debian" (so
the people with approval rights in gerrit, in analogy to the Go project).
The people who steer the project and are final deciders on Debian (so the
Debian users vote for someone to become Debian Developer and give him right
to vote? If no, how can it be "representative"?
пн, 27 мая 2019 г. в 08:35, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <
golang-nuts@googlegroups.com>:
> This is a bit of an aside, I agree with everything Ian said, but:
>
> On Thu,
I am a consumer of Go. As far as I am concerned, it has been a wonder of modern
computing. And I have been programming for almost 40 years.
As a cloud computing and data science polyglot, Go has become my go to language
for systems control and critical web “glue” projects. It has been a joy to
Ian: I find many of your comments related to how the Go team functions very
interesting,
I for one would find it helpful if 2 or 3 times a year the Go Team would
communicate to the Go community at large, information related to where and
in what direction(s) it is taking Go, and what directions
On Thu, May 23, 2019, at 22:28, Anthony Martin wrote:
> How do you square this opinion with the fact that the Go team went out
> of their way to enable the use of third-party module proxies,
> something that is good for the community but would be of little
> practical use to Google?
I'm certainly
Sam Whited once said:
> This is especially a problem when these proposals further tie Go to
> Google web services run by the Go team (though I'm veering off into a
> separate problem here). To me this feels like it's almost a type of
> vertical integration and it's an absolutely disgusting thing
This makes a bit of sense from the Google point of view.
The central nut of a language under development is something that needs to
be well managed.
I have seen this with Modula-2 in the past as well as C++.
Niklaus Wirth declined blessing a standard library for Modula-2 perhaps
killing it as a
I apologize for the rambling nature of this post; I somehow sent this
while working on a revision, I should really figure out what keyboard
shortcut I keep accidentally hitting to do that, especially when I
haven't toned down the language yet. Oh well, please pardon the lack
of polish.
—Sam
On
Thank you for writing your reply Ian. Since it's a rather long post I
don't want to go through it point by point, but suffice it to say that I
agree with most of what you've written. However, I also agree that Go is
Google's language, and that in its current form this is a problem. I'm going to
I just want to thank Ian for taking the time to write this. I've already
got the idea that it worked that way, but my own deduction process, but
it's good to have a confirmation from inside.
When I started contributing to Go, whatever that means... talks, code,
samples, etc... my first reaction
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 9:18 AM wrote:
>
> https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/programming/GoIsGooglesLanguage
Thanks for the link. There is clearly a real sense in which Go is
Google's language. But I think I would like to emphasize some points
that don't necessarily contradict the blog
https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/programming/GoIsGooglesLanguage
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
28 matches
Mail list logo
