code review 179700043: go1.4rc2

go1.4rc2

[adg, 2014-12-02 02:36:08]

Hello rsc (cc: golang-codereviews@googlegroups.com),

I'd like you to review this change to
https://code.google.com/p/go

[rsc, 2014-12-02 02:42:30]

LGTM

[adg, 2014-12-02 02:43:46]

*** Submitted as https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=6c4e66ae7137 ***

go1.4rc2

LGTM=rsc
R=rsc
CC=golang-codereviews
https://codereview.appspot.com/179700043

[minux, 2014-12-02 02:44:34]

Have you considered CL 180380043?

[rsc, 2014-12-02 03:00:36]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:44 PM, minux <minux@golang.org> wrote:

> Have you considered CL 180380043?
>
I haven't gotten through my Thanksgiving email backlog for golang.org yet.
I have been spending all my Go time finding that GC bug. I hope to get to
it tomorrow. It's still possible to get into the release even though it's
not in rc2.

Russ

[minux, 2014-12-02 03:04:28]

On Dec 1, 2014 10:00 PM, "Russ Cox" <rsc@golang.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:44 PM, minux <minux@golang.org> wrote:
>> Have you considered CL 180380043?
>
> I haven't gotten through my Thanksgiving email backlog for golang.org
yet. I have been spending all my Go time finding that GC bug. I hope to get
to it tomorrow. It's still possible to get into the release even though
it's not in rc2.
Understood. Getting rc2 out soon with the critical GC bug fix is more
important than the pprof usability fix, which I believe don't need a rc.

Thanks.