Hi Oleg,

> I've pushed the split III to master.

Fantastic work!

> I think you may help! The identification of the group is still human
> decision making process and I'm not sure it may be automated in any point.

I can certainly help with this then. I'll have some free time on Friday and
I can coordinate with you then.
> Each of the module header contains a short annotation which packages it
> expects to have, feel free to improve it to make it even more clear
> for others.
>
> - golang-check
> - golang-web
> - golang-crypto
>
> TBA:
> - golang-compression :: Anything related to that subject, see
>   python-compression, java-compression, perl-compression.
>
> - golang-build or golang-extension :: Any low level golang add-ons not
> included in core distribution see <https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x> or
> any 0 dependencies high reference modules.
>
> - golang-xyz :: As any other *-xyz module would absorb anything else
>   left behind.

This all sounds sensible to me.

>> 1. Put a magic comment above each package that you would like to move.
>> 2. Run a simple script that makes a note of all of these into a
>> to-move-list.
>> 3. Then stash the change with the comments you made (in case you need
>> to change things)
>> 4. Run another script that takes the package list and performs the
>> move in one's repository.
>> 5. Sort out the use-package declarations manually and run tests.
>> 6. When satisfied, stash the change and keep just the use-package
>> changes.
>> 7. Run a final script that loops through all the packages and commits
>> each one in turn.
>> 8. Rebase to suit.
>
> We may extend handy script accelerating committing process, see
> "etc/committer.scm"

Okay, cool, I'll have a look at it on Friday.
>> - I'm not a scheme programmer, but I did use Haskell at university so
>> I'm familiar with thinking in a functional style.
> Me too =), but you still can help by just providing some review to
> existing code base and available packages in golagn.scm and trying to
> identify close group for each of them.
>
>> I'm also imagining some the possibility of having a script that can
>> remove redundant #:use-module's in the future, though I don't know if
>> we care about a few unneeded modules being included.
> The clean up task may be organasied after sort process is completed, having
> not required #:use-module does not hurt too much but for keeping modules
> tidy and fast to load it definitely beneficial.

This makes sense. Not a priority at present but a nice-to

Looking forward to hacking golang.scm to pieces!

Kind regards,
 - Christina