Open griesemer opened 5 years ago
2019-08-27 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @ianlancetaylor
2019-09-03 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @ianlancetaylor
2019-09-10 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
20190-09-17 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2019-09-24 / @bradfitz, @griesemer
2019-10-01 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
?<variable>
simplify handling of multiple-return-values2019-10-08 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2019-10-15 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2019-10-22 / @bradfitz, @griesemer
2019-10-29 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
?<variable>
simplify handling of multiple-return-values2019-11-05 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2019-11-12 / @bradfitz, @griesemer
Note: This was an abbreviated mtg due to external scheduling conflicts.
2019-11-19 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2019-11-26 / @bradfitz, @ianlancetaylor
2019-12-03 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2019-12-10 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2019-12-17 / @griesemer
Note: Due to other reviewers being ooo I only processed two proposals that were scheduled for closing.
2020-01-07 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-01-14 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
for
loop in a goroutine with go
keywordWe also discussed how we can make the Go 2 proposal review process more scalable. Currently it is fairly simple to create a new Go 2 proposal (like the proposal process intended), but then it becomes a significant burden for the proposal committee to ask and answer many of the questions that should have been answered by the proposal. We are planning to introduce a template of questions (CL 214820) with the intent to dismiss new proposals quickly if they don’t have reasonable answers for most of the questions.
2020-01-21 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-01-28 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-02-04 / @griesemer, @iant
2020-02-18 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
??
operator to select first non-zero value2020-02-25 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
I just wanted to let the proposal review group know that these meeting minutes are helpful, and that I appreciate you writing them up. If others feel the same way, please give a thumbs up to this comment, so that the review group knows. :)
Unfortunately, @josharian, it will be a very quiet emoji party because the conversation is locked 🔒
@josharian Thanks! We will keep doing this.
2020-03-10 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
~
for stack allocated variables2020-03-17 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-03-24 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-03-31 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
~
for stack allocated variables2020-04-07 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-04-14 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-04-21 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-05-05 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-05-12 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-05-19 / @griesemer, @iant
2020-05-26 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-06-02 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-06-16 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-06-16 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-07-07 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-07-14 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
An update regarding the Go 2 proposal review process:
Over the last couple of years, three of us (@bradfitz, @griesemer, @ianlancetaylor) have been meeting regularly for approx. one hour each week to review outstanding Go 2 proposals. More recently, we have started documenting this process in this issue with weekly updates. The goal was and is to identify promising ideas, weed out less suitable proposals, and generally shepherd along issues so they all get some attention eventually.
As of late, most proposals we are seeing suggest changes to the language. Any language change needs to be fully fleshed out and bring a significant benefit. Yet we are not planning to change the language beyond the ongoing discussion on generics.
In turn, our proposal review meetings have become somewhat scripted and unproductive: We spend much of the time trying to understand or identify issues with (language) proposals so we can make progress or close them for good reason, yet there is no urgent need to make progress with most of them in the first place. In a sense, our goal to ensure all proposals are shepherded along was probably misdirected.
Going forward, we will try a different approach: Instead of trying to process all incoming proposals, we will hand-pick promising candidates as time permits. Similarly, proposals which we don't see going anywhere we will close quickly without too much discussion. On the flipside, we may ignore proposals for extended periods of time. When we do address a proposal, we will continue to report it in this issue. To summarize: We are open to new ideas but we are in no hurry to make changes.
We hope this will free up time to work on more pressing issues. With respect to language changes, most will have to wait until a final decision on generics is made: we don't want unrelated changes to interfere with the generics design. And even after generics, the emphasis will be on fine-tuning the language and rounding it out where there are "holes", rather than radical changes. Given our growing code and user base, we must prize backward-compatibility and stability over personal convenience or preference.
The Go 2 proposal review team.
2020-07-21 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-08-11 / @iant
2020-08-18 / @ianlancetaylor
2020-08-25 / @ianlancetaylor
2020-09-01 / @bradfitz, @griesemer, @iant
2020-09-15 / @griesemer, @iant
The Go 2 proposal review group meets monthly (every first Wednesday of a month) to review pending Go 2 proposal issues and move them along in the proposal process.
Review consists primarily of checking that discussion is ongoing, commenting on issues to move discussion along, summarizing long discussions, CC’ing experts, and accepting or closing proposals when the discussion on the GitHub issue has reached a clear consensus about the outcome.
Review also includes closing proposals that are untenable (for example, because the changes are sufficiently backwards-incompatible even after allowing for significant changes to the language as part of the Go 2 effort, or violate key design goals of the language or packages).
This meta-issue records minutes of the Go 2 proposal review meetings as issue comments, so that they can be cross-linked easily with the relevant issues. This meta-issue is for minutes only; comments that are not meeting minutes will be deleted.
(See also #33502 which records the minutes of non-Go 2 proposals review meetings).