Remove legacy proto code for Bazel < 0.21 #3099
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Seems like a good fix to me. I will merge this on April 1 if no one else objects. If I don't actually do it on that Friday, feel free to ping the PR on Monday and I'll do it. Thanks! |
|
Sweet! Thanks for a fast reply. Glad it looks to be helpful :) |
|
Pinging because I happened to think of this and it's past Friday :) |
|
Thanks for the reminder and the PR! |
|
Thank you for being so fast and so great! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hey wonderful Bazel Go folks,
I was browsing the codebase and noticed both that the minimum Bazel version for rules_go is 4.2.1 (in the release notes) and also saw a section of code saying it should be deleted when Bazel minimum version >= 0.21.0. So I figured I should toss up a PR doing just that!
Looks like @jayconrod wrote the code originally. Tagging him in case he wants to weigh in with context. Maybe there's more dead code that should be deleted. But it looks like he might be busy and hasn't committed in a while, so I'd propose that we probably shouldn't wait synchronously on his reply.
Thanks for reading!
Chris
(ex-Googler)