Joel Sing

> > The core Google Go team doesn't wish to maintain the secondary ports and would like to have it done by other parties. > > Unfortinetly to me the...

> > Can you say more about that? Thanks. > > These are much more constrained environments. To limit sdcard wear, the root filesystem is usually mounted read-only (at least...

Some general comments/observations (rather than trying to address each of the points in the proposal): - Historically, one of the challenges has been the visibility of issues, especially intermittent failures...

> Would you not find it beneficial to have a first-class port host dispatch cross compiled tests with internal linking to run a few smoke tests even on the limited...

> @4a6f656c > > > This seems to be working on the premise that there are only two levels/options - while stability and reliability is essential for first class ports,...

> > Would you not find it beneficial to have a first-class port host dispatch cross compiled tests with internal linking to run a few smoke tests even on the...

> Are there any objections to accepting this proposal? Thanks! While I think the overall general direction is sensible, I still have some concerns: - Given that a port is...

> @4a6f656c The current proposal text says that a port will only be broken if nobody is actively working on a solution. So, no, all ports will not be immediately...

> The default set of trybots will change to only cover first class ports. I also expect that this is going to result in a lot of unintended/unexpected breakage on...

> > as far as I can see, these ports already meet the criteria specified for broken ports (hence currently being marked as having issues on the build page) -...