GODOCS GOLANG LICENSE
GODOCS GOLANG SERIES
GODOCS GOLANG FREE

ok, all that said, I'm really grateful for the work and progress done with godocs.io. Why not just announce the plan to replace at the start? Why wait to announce your intentions until you actually do it? I'm not trying to be accusatory and suspicious, I don't think anyone should be, but it's something that I just can't get off of my mind.

GODOCS GOLANG SERIES

It sort of came off as a series of happy accidents. file will not result in pkg.go.dev hiding the Apache Traffic Control Godocs.

GODOCS GOLANG LICENSE

(I'll dig up that thread if someone REALLY wants me to) So, I'm really convinced that it was always the plan to replace, but its just bizarre to me that it wasn't communicated like that since the start. 126 The atc-dependency.lre license exception from /x/pkgsite.

GODOCS GOLANG FREE

didn't mention it? It seems highly unlikely that they just rolled out a new package doc site, along with a free bonus 'discovery site' - they never billed it as a new home page until it became the actual home page - and then noticed the discovery site could conveniently be the new home page.įurthermore, on Twitter, someone criticized the way go.dev has corporate logos, and one of the Go project managers (or some such role, I don't know) replied that it was for funding the project. What's really odd to me is that, in retrospect, it seems like they had a long term plan to replace altogether, at least since they rolled out pkg.go.dev, but just. And finally, they just scrapped and replaced it with go.dev. But pkg.go.dev obviously came with go.dev, which they just called a 'discovery site' (or something to that effect, I don't remember).okay? Then they stripped off /pkg (the old standard library documentation) and the reason they gave was to reduce the number of doc servers they had to run. Like, at first they rolled out pkg.go.dev, saying ' is really old, so we're replacing it'. That, and, I'm little puzzled as to how they rolled out pkg.go.dev, and go.dev, and replaced with go.dev. It's mostly just the design that gets me. (legal stuff, better safe than sorry) There's the fact that the source wasn't available for like a month at first, but that changed once it was brought up, and I don't think the Go team was trying hide anything or something. In older threads Russ Cox gave perfectly acceptable reasons to not accept every license. I don't even agree with a lot of the criticism thrown at pkg.go.dev. My ideal Go docs site would have the appearance of the old /pkg pages, with a fixed width. The old docs site and old home page just felt quieter, less commercial, yet still fresh and modern and professional.

And I really don't care for the animations and drop shadows. It just feels big, and loud, and cramped. I wish I had the design vocabulary to explain why. (and go.dev compared to the old ) It just doesn't gel with me. But I really just don't care for how its designed compared to the old. flagging deprecated things, the search is great) and hope those get into godocs.io as well.

I appreciate the work the Go team put into pkg.go.dev, and I like the new features they've put in (e.g.

Godocs golang