[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070416161337.d59f2ea3.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:13:37 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>,
i4ldeveloper@...tserv.isdn4linux.de, Karsten Keil <kkeil@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: so what *is* obsolete and removable?
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:39:10 +0200 Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 15.04.2007 22:55 schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
> > as i recall, the isdn4linux was *un*obsoleted, wasn't it?
>
> Actually, it wasn't.
>
> We *did* reach a consensus that isdn4linux is not obsolete in the
> accepted sense of the word, because there is no replacement for it
> so far.
>
> OTOH I have since submitted (twice, in fact) a patch that would remove
> the "(obsolete)" label from the Kconfig entry, but somehow nothing
> ever became of it. My submissions just linger in LKML, uncommented and
> unmerged.
Did you submit the patch to Andrew Morton?
Is the patch in the -mm patchset?
Did Karsten ack the patch?
If the patch is in -mm and it's not critical (like this subject),
then it probably won't be merged until after 2.6.21 is released...
> To sum it up, we agree that the "(obsolete)" label is wrong, but we
> won't remove it. I have no idea how to resolve that situation.
>
> What I do know is that it would be very wrong to remove isdn4linux,
> because it has an existing userbase with nowhere else to go.
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists