godeps: initial commit

godeps: initial commit

First steps for this new command - list all dependencies.

Still to come:
	cleanliness checking.
	updating.

https://code.launchpad.net/~rogpeppe/godeps/01-initial/+merge/161456

(do not edit description out of merge proposal)

[rog, 2013-04-29 17:05:27]

Please take a look.

[rog, 2013-04-30 10:49:39]

Please take a look.

[dimitern, 2013-05-02 14:53:06]

Looks nice so far, I have some questions though.

https://codereview.appspot.com/9016043/diff/7001/godeps.go
File godeps.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/9016043/diff/7001/godeps.go#newcode24
godeps.go:24: var usage = `
const?

https://codereview.appspot.com/9016043/diff/7001/godeps.go#newcode40
godeps.go:40: `[1:]
how about adding a few lines explaining the output format of the file it
generates?

https://codereview.appspot.com/9016043/diff/7001/godeps.go#newcode321
godeps.go:321: ".hg":  hgVCS{},
how about svn or git?

https://codereview.appspot.com/9016043/diff/7001/godeps.go#newcode402
godeps.go:402: var errorf = func(f string, a ...interface{}) {
why not a plain func?

[rog, 2013-05-02 14:58:27]

https://codereview.appspot.com/9016043/diff/7001/godeps.go
File godeps.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/9016043/diff/7001/godeps.go#newcode24
godeps.go:24: var usage = `
On 2013/05/02 14:53:07, dimitern wrote:
> const?

not if i want to keep the [1:] at the end (it would be nice if a constant slice
of a const was also a const, but it isn't.

https://codereview.appspot.com/9016043/diff/7001/godeps.go#newcode40
godeps.go:40: `[1:]
On 2013/05/02 14:53:07, dimitern wrote:
> how about adding a few lines explaining the output format of the file it
> generates?

good idea.

https://codereview.appspot.com/9016043/diff/7001/godeps.go#newcode321
godeps.go:321: ".hg":  hgVCS{},
On 2013/05/02 14:53:07, dimitern wrote:
> how about svn or git?

TODO :-) current motivation: hg and bzr are the only ones needed for juju.

https://codereview.appspot.com/9016043/diff/7001/godeps.go#newcode402
godeps.go:402: var errorf = func(f string, a ...interface{}) {
On 2013/05/02 14:53:07, dimitern wrote:
> why not a plain func?

because the test code hooks into it to work out
what error messages are printed.

[dimitern, 2013-05-02 15:01:10]

Thanks for the responses, LGTM.