code review 5979046: old/regexp, old/template: delete.

old/regexp, old/template: delete.

Both of these have replacements.

[dsymonds, 2012-04-01 06:28:58]

Hello golang-dev@googlegroups.com,

I'd like you to review this change to
https://go.googlecode.com/hg/

[r, 2012-04-01 07:26:40]

We said they'd stick around (see go1.html). Is there a problem?

-rob

[dsymonds, 2012-04-01 07:40:04]

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Rob 'Commander' Pike <r@golang.org> wrote:

> We said they'd stick around (see go1.html). Is there a problem?

People can still check out the code before this point and get
something that works, though in these two cases I don't know why
they'd want to. Do we plan to keep and maintain these packages
long-term? We don't expect them to migrate back out of old/, and we
don't expect people to actually use them (they aren't in Go 1).

I thought the plan was to simply delete these after Go 1, hence this
CL. If not, I'm confused about their purpose.


Dave.

[rsc, 2012-04-02 16:17:17]

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 03:40, David Symonds <dsymonds@golang.org> wrote:
> I thought the plan was to simply delete these after Go 1

Me too.  I wanted to keep them until Go 1 so that we'd
be able to say 'you can find a version that is Go 1-compatible
(no changes need to compiled) in the repository history'.
But now they can go.  I don't believe that deleting them is
incompatible with what it says in go1.html.

Russ

[r2, 2012-04-02 20:59:27]

On 03/04/2012, at 2:17 AM, Russ Cox wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 03:40, David Symonds <dsymonds@golang.org> wrote:
>> I thought the plan was to simply delete these after Go 1
> 
> Me too.  I wanted to keep them until Go 1 so that we'd
> be able to say 'you can find a version that is Go 1-compatible
> (no changes need to compiled) in the repository history'.
> But now they can go.  I don't believe that deleting them is
> incompatible with what it says in go1.html.

I agree they can be deleted at some point, but we should give people some time,
on the order of weeks, to access them while they update their old code. It's
only Monday after the release; we shouldn't be actively trying to break their
software.

-rob

[adg, 2012-04-02 22:42:20]

On 3 April 2012 06:59, Rob 'Commander' Pike <r@google.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2012, at 2:17 AM, Russ Cox wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 03:40, David Symonds <dsymonds@golang.org> wrote:
>>> I thought the plan was to simply delete these after Go 1
>>
>> Me too.  I wanted to keep them until Go 1 so that we'd
>> be able to say 'you can find a version that is Go 1-compatible
>> (no changes need to compiled) in the repository history'.
>> But now they can go.  I don't believe that deleting them is
>> incompatible with what it says in go1.html.
>
> I agree they can be deleted at some point, but we should give people some
time, on the order of weeks, to access them while they update their old code.
It's only Monday after the release; we shouldn't be actively trying to break
their software.

I'm not sure it matters. A simple 'hg update weekly.2012-03-27' gives
you go1 with exp/ and old/

Andrew

[r2, 2012-04-02 22:43:29]

Again, what's the rush?

-rob

[dsymonds, 2012-04-02 23:19:14]

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Rob 'Commander' Pike <r@google.com> wrote:

> Again, what's the rush?

There's no rush, but with Go 1 behind us that's true for almost
anything we're going to do. This seems like a pretty low-risk cleanup
that would also flush out people using these packages if they're
running at tip.


Dave.

[r2, 2012-04-02 23:50:00]

On 03/04/2012, at 9:19 AM, David Symonds wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Rob 'Commander' Pike <r@google.com> wrote:
> 
>> Again, what's the rush?
> 
> There's no rush, but with Go 1 behind us that's true for almost
> anything we're going to do. This seems like a pretty low-risk cleanup
> that would also flush out people using these packages if they're
> running at tip.

We don't need to flush them out with any alacrity.

I propose we wait say three weeks to give people some time to react to Go 1,
then delete the packages. When we do so, we should update go1.html to tell
people how to find them if they need them.

-rob

[dsymonds, 2012-04-03 01:06:58]

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Rob 'Commander' Pike <r@google.com> wrote:

> I propose we wait say three weeks to give people some time to react to Go 1,
then delete the packages. When we do so, we should update go1.html to tell
people how to find them if they need them.

Sure. I'll return then.

[dsymonds, 2012-04-26 03:03:53]

I've updated go1.html to note their outright deletion. I could add the
hg commands to access them, but I'm not sure there's much point in
that.

[r, 2012-04-27 05:05:59]

LGTM

[dsymonds, 2012-04-27 05:12:40]

*** Submitted as http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=850cadc5bc9f ***

old/regexp, old/template: delete.

Both of these have replacements.

R=golang-dev, r, rsc, r, adg
CC=golang-dev
http://codereview.appspot.com/5979046