[PATCH 00/25] gnu: golang: Add gopls

This is a patch series to add the gopls package.

I haven't contributed to many projects which use the e-mail flow, so hopefully

I'm doing this correctly. Please feel free to make suggestions if not!

Some of the diffs are a little busier than I'd like for version bumps. This is

due to running `guix style` over everything.

For all of the packages I have:

. Run guix style

. Run guix lint

. Built 2x

. Checked that the change is in the correct branch

. Built all dependencies

. Built the repository

Katherine Cox-Buday (25):

gnu: go-golang-org-x-sync: Update to 0.1.0-1.8fcdb60.

gnu: go-golang-org-x-mod: Update to 0.7.0.

gnu: Add go-golang-org-x-exp.

gnu: Add go-github-com-jba-printsrc.

gnu: Add go-github-com-google-safehtml.

gnu: Add go-github-com-jba-templatecheck.

gnu: go-github-com-google-go-cmp-cmp: Update to 0.5.9.

gnu: go-github-com-pkg-diff: Update to

0.0.0-20210226163009-20ebb0f2a09e.

gnu: go-github-com-rogpeppe-go-internal: Update to 1.9.0.

gnu: gopkg-in-errgo-fmt-errors: Rename package to

go-gopkg-in-errgo-fmt-errors.

gnu: go-golang-org-x-tools: Update to 0.5.0.

gnu: Add xurls.

gnu: Add go-mvdan-cc-xurls.

gnu: Add misspell.

gnu: Add go-github-com-client9-misspell.

gnu: Add go-github-com-google-go-cmdtest.

gnu: Add unparam.

gnu: Add go-mvdan-cc-unparam.

gnu: Add govulncheck.

gnu: Add go-golang-org-x-vuln.

gnu: go-github-com-burntsushi-toml: Update to 1.2.1.

gnu: go-honnef-co-go-tools: Update to 0.3.3.

gnu: Add gofumpt.

gnu: Add go-mvdan-cc-gofumpt.

gnu: Add gopls.

gnu/packages/configuration-management.scm | 2 +-

gnu/packages/golang.scm | 695 ++++++++++++++++++----

2 files changed, 578 insertions(+), 119 deletions(-)

base-commit: 5c921977179489caef4a9e54ada6696fc86d2f0b

--

2.38.1

---

gnu/packages/golang.scm | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 file changed, 45 insertions(+)

merge 60898 60899 60900 60901 60902

merge 60898 60903 60904 60905 60906

merge 60898 60907 60908 60909 60910

merge 60898 60911 60912 60913 60914

merge 60898 60915 60916 60917 60918

merge 60898 60919 60920

merge 60898 60921 60922

thanks

Weird: I got ‘Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.’ for

this obviously correct line.

Let's try again.

merge 60899 60904 60907 60908 60917 60920 60921 60919 60910 60903 60915 60914 60922 60909 60918 60913 60900 60899 60905 60901 60912 60898 60906 60902 60916 60911

--

Katherine

Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e@gmail.com> writes:

Hello Guix! Acknowledging that everyone are volunteers, and busy (guilty

myself), this is a humble request for a review of this patch-series I

made two weeks ago so that it doesn't bit-rot.

I have a `gopls` home service[1] waiting to be proposed after this

patch-series is merged.

Thank you very much!

[1] https://github.com/kat-co/guix-channels/blob/upstream-staging/upstream/home/services/gopls.scm

P.S. I think I am following etiquette for review reminders (i.e. waiting

long enough, bringing this over to guix-devel), but I was having trouble

finding examples. If I haven't waited long enough, or have reminded in

the wrong way, please give me feedback.

--

Katherine

Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e@gmail.com> writes:

Hello, this is another humble request for review :)

It looks like QA is passing, and I think I did a pretty thorough job of

making sure things follow standards and will apply cleanly.

--

Katherine

Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e@gmail.com> writes:

I've made a few tweaks and pushed this to master as

f3ab5888a0bc6446104ddbba41a413a86eb298e2.

Thanks,

Chris

On Mon Feb 6, 2023 at 11:14 PM GMT, Christopher Baines wrote:

Nooo, my review was too slow :P

-- (

s/override/remove-other/, perhaps?

Could this be changed to just ``inputs''?

(description

"This package provides the official @acronym{LSP, language server protocol}

server for the Go language, allowing LSP-compatible editors to automatically

support @acronym{IDE, integrated development environment}-like features.")

-- (

"(" <paren@disroot.org> writes:

I think reviewing changes/sending feedback after things have been merged

is fine (and important). If more people get involved in reviewing

things, this is probably something that'll happen more, so I think for

now it's good to embrace it.

Hopefully we can continue the discussion around these changes and

perhaps further improve things with some additional patches.

Chris

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:

Thank you so much!

I'm going to review the changes (and the reviews from open-paren) to try

and incorporate that going forward.

--

Katherine

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:

I responded to Chris's original message, but: +1 to what Chris says. I'm

still going to look at your feedback, paren, and maybe send some more

patches.

Personally, I prefer always moving forward, so long as it doesn't break

anything.

Thank you very much for the reviews!

--

Katherine