Austin Clements

Based on the discussion above, this proposal seems like a **[likely accept](https://go.dev/s/proposal-status#likely-accept)**. — aclements for the proposal review group The proposal is to extend the `go mod verify` command with...

While relative line numbers are certainly less fragile than absolute line numbers, what if we had "anchor" comments instead? For example, we could add a new comment `// anchor [...

This proposal has been added to the [active column](https://go.dev/s/proposal-status#active) of the proposals project and will now be reviewed at the weekly proposal review meetings. — aclements for the proposal review...

Based on the discussion above, this proposal seems like a **[likely accept](https://go.dev/s/proposal-status#likely-accept)**. — aclements for the proposal review group The proposal is to rename the top-level `simd` package to `simd/archsimd`....

This proposal has been added to the [active column](https://go.dev/s/proposal-status#active) of the proposals project and will now be reviewed at the weekly proposal review meetings. — aclements for the proposal review...

How does `PriorityUpdateFrame` relate to the existing [`PriorityFrame`](https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x/net/http2#PriorityFrame)? If I understand correctly, `PriorityFrame` is part of the RFC 7540 scheme, but I didn't see it on the list of things...

> Let me edit it for clarity so that "deprecation" strictly means the removal of a symbol. We can't remove symbols that have already appeared in a released Go version....

> func (f *Framer) WritePriorityUpdate(streamID uint32, p PriorityParam) error {} I believe `p` should be a string? Let's also call the parameter `priority`. > type PriorityUpdateFrame struct { > FrameHeader...

> A newbie question on my end if you don't mind: without actually [marking things as deprecated](https://go.dev/wiki/Deprecated) (which are then surfaced via tooling users use), how do we reliably notify...

Let's leave all of the deprecation as part of https://github.com/golang/go/issues/67817. It seems like we should just change the default scheduler to RFC 9218 (with the tweak to the default priority...