linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Add the code maturity levels DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:27:58 +0100
From:	Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
To:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
CC:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Add the code maturity levels DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE.

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:35:07 +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> I think that the patch is useful and that the distinction between
> DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE options is quite clear:
> 
> * DEPRECATED == new better code is available, old code scheduled for removal
> 
> * OBSOLETE == no replacement yet but the code is broken by design
>   and unreliable, not scheduled for removal yet

Is that really the consensus on these definitions? I thought it was
more or less the opposite:

* DEPRECATED == no (complete) replacement available yet, but it has
  been decided that this code is less than optimal and alternatives
  should be preferred

* OBSOLETE == replacement available, no reason to use this code anymore

-- 
Tilman Schmidt                    E-Mail: tilman@...p.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (251 bytes)