From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] build: Speed up .go compilation.
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:16:55 +0100
Message-ID: <87fuxw6jwo.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87lha3rx04.fsf@T420.taylan> <87mvsgxpef.fsf@T420.taylan>
	<87ziwgf1b4.fsf@gnu.org> <877fjhjsa8.fsf@netris.org>
	<87r3hnes40.fsf@gnu.org> <87ziwbvkz2.fsf@T420.taylan>
	<87a8o8qmx0.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49329)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1aKtl0-0007II-Qv
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2016 15:17:03 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1aKtkv-0003A4-Ri
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2016 15:17:02 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87a8o8qmx0.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\=
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Thu, 14 Jan 2016 15:02:35 +0100")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?=22Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?=
	=?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer=22?= <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) skribis:

> taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer") skribi=
s:

[...]

>> So in the worst case we can just turn that par-for-each into a for-each
>> and still get benefits.
>
> Right.
>
> Mark, WDYT?
>
> I would say: go for it, and let=E2=80=99s switch back to =E2=80=98for-eac=
h=E2=80=99 if/when we
> have evidence of things going wrong.

So, Taylan, OK to push the latest version of the patch (the one in
<874mejwzy2.fsf@T420.taylan> if I=E2=80=99m not mistaken)!

Thank you,
Ludo=E2=80=99.